Re: Some pgAdmin bugs...

On 10/09/2019 18.36, Avin Kavish wrote:
> Isn't there some internal uniqueness tracking mechanism? Object IDs or
> something?
>
> On Tue., 10 Sep. 2019, 9:56 pm Dave Page, <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org
> <mailto:dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 9:24 AM Arni Kromić
> <arni(dot)kromic(at)bios-ict(dot)hr <mailto:arni(dot)kromic(at)bios-ict(dot)hr>> wrote:
>
> On 10/09/2019 14.42, richard coleman wrote:
>> Dave, 
>>
>> While I agree it's generally a good idea to have a primary
>> key, the solution as currently implemented leaves the user
>> unable to edit, or in this case to even add a record to table
>> without one.  I would suggest either having pgAdmin4 compute
>> some sort of an /internal key/ for cases like this, or in the
>> alternative *disable* those features (such as View/*Edit*)
>> that have not been implemented for cases such as this. 
>> Perhaps with a dialog informing the user that "Editing or
>> adding data isn't supported on tables without a primary key".
>>
>> rik.
>>
> I agree this is a corner case as mentioned. However, sometimes
> PK-s (or indexes) are simply not needed, say if the table is
> insert-only most of the time and its data gets dumped without
> any filters, and nothing ever needs to be deleted. I believe
> Inserts should also work from pgAdmin as they do from code.
>
> So, should a issue be raised, or is it already decided this is
> a "wontfix"?
>
>
> No, it's not decided. Feel free to add a feature request, but it's
> likely to be considered low priority.
>
Great, I think I'll do it, for the sake of completeness. I believe there
is no need to create workarounds for updates and/or deletes in this
case; they should remain disabled when there is no PK. Just inserts (the
"empty row" in this case) should be made possible.

>  
>
> ...
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Page
> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
> Twitter: @pgsnake
>
> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>

--
Kind Regards,
Arni Kromić