Re: Issue 598

From: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
To: Dieter Van de Walle <Dieter(dot)VandeWalle(at)ebit(dot)be>
Cc: pgadmin-hackers <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Issue 598
Date: 2013-09-04 16:49:23
Message-ID: CA+OCxowVp7OAjmiY=x_w_tj_rNNiFy8ecc6mqYaWL+BSoWUOfw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgadmin-hackers

Hi

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Dieter Van de Walle
<Dieter(dot)VandeWalle(at)ebit(dot)be> wrote:
> I have attached a patch to the issue, see: https://redmine.postgresql.org/issues/598 .
> Not sure about the preferred way to submit patches? I generated a patch file using 'git format-patch' .

The format is fine. Why does the patch remove the check to stop you
dropping a system table though? That is unrelated and seems
ill-advised.

> It works, but I'd love some feedback on this...
> I'm presuming the selected object will always be a collection when doing truncate, however not sure if this is true...
> Would be nice to be enlightened on this ...

No, I doubt it will always be a collection. Have a look at the code to
drop objects - Iirc, that does already handle multiple objects and
should get this right. However, if memory serves it does it in a
different way; you select multiple objects in the listview (NOT the
treeview) and drop them all at once. That gives more flexibility than
dropping the entire collection of course.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgadmin-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rūdolfs Mazurs 2013-09-05 12:20:34
Previous Message Dieter Van de Walle 2013-09-04 13:59:46 Re: Issue 598