Re: Regarding feature #3319

From: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
To: Yogesh Mahajan <yogesh(dot)mahajan(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Aditya Toshniwal <aditya(dot)toshniwal(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Anil Sahoo <anil(dot)sahoo(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgadmin-hackers <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Regarding feature #3319
Date: 2025-02-19 13:25:10
Message-ID: CA+OCxoyXBn+heMWc7Jg_b+sB=+KnTwcwGBYj2Tx8bzSNNqV8Uw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgadmin-hackers

On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 at 12:24, Yogesh Mahajan <
yogesh(dot)mahajan(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 5:12 PM Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 at 06:37, Aditya Toshniwal <
>> aditya(dot)toshniwal(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Anil/Dave,
>>>
>>> Why not use browser localStorage for saving this information? It
>>> persists when the browser closes and is based on the URL. It is safer to
>>> store at the user's machine than on our server.
>>> For Electron also it should work.
>>> This will reduce load on the pgAdmin server.
>>>
>>
>> Because it stores it at the users machine and not on the pgAdmin server,
>> and thus state cannot be restored if the user is on a different machine. I
>> think that's a compelling feature.
>>
>> That said, I think this is largely irrelevant until the fundamental
>> problem is solved. e.g. how do we restore the state of the session
>> (spoiler: it's almost certainly not possible, unless we can figure out all
>> the session-changing side effects of every query, stored procedure/function
>> etc. that may have been directly or indirectly called).
>>
>> Or, we make a decision not to bother with that, and to give the user
>> suitable warnings such as we do when we perform a reconnect.
>>
>
> If I understand correctly, Users are complaining about losing unsaved data
> in the query tool and not about data output or session state. Hence just
> reopening the query tool with only data should be suffice.
>

I'm sure that will suffice for 95%+ of users. The ones I'm concerned about
are those who (for example) have done SET search_path = ... and then
performed some destructive operation that worked as expected because of the
earlier SET, but might cause data loss or unexpected consequences if run
without the SET.

Granted, that class of issues is likely to affect only a small number of
users in reality, but the consequences could easily be data loss.

--
Dave Page
pgAdmin: https://www.pgadmin.org
PostgreSQL: https://www.postgresql.org
pgEdge: https://www.pgedge.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgadmin-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Anthony DeBarros 2025-02-19 13:41:08 Re: Regarding feature #3319
Previous Message Yogesh Mahajan 2025-02-19 12:24:09 Re: Regarding feature #3319