From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | George Gelashvili <ggelashvili(at)pivotal(dot)io> |
Cc: | Robert Eckhardt <reckhardt(at)pivotal(dot)io>, "pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "plumadmin(at)pivotal(dot)io" <plumadmin(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Ashesh Vashi <ashesh(dot)vashi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Driver Module |
Date: | 2017-01-13 05:48:42 |
Message-ID: | CA+OCxozQ+HTa0Cinb+Ka6t5OwWPUVQvsMnJvtOgr-_HoR5OL3g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgadmin-hackers |
Hi
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:18 PM, George Gelashvili
<ggelashvili(at)pivotal(dot)io> wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> We looked through the places where there is existing version checking and
> there isn't a ton of it.
That's because we went to great lengths to minimise it in pgAdmin 4.
It's mostly confined to template selection for SQL now.
> Our current plan for supporting Greenplum in
> pgAdmin4 was not necessarily to support all the features of pgAdmin4, but to
> at least get the core functionality working.
> I'm not too concerned about there being a ton of switches, because I don't
> think most features will need to be disabled. We will also likely make
> changes to Greenplum to support certain features like query plans rather
> than doing all the changes on the pgAdmin4 side.
OK. From my perspective though, I have to ensure that what we offer in
the community is a good experience. If it's not appropriate or
necessary to support a feature in GP, that's fine - but it needs to be
disabled to prevent users reporting bugs to us
> What I would like to see though is version checking that happens in one
> place and is not tied exclusively to either flavor or version, but to a
> combination of the two. E.g. Greenplum 5.0 might support a feature that is
> not supported in 8.3 postgres.
Can you do a rough assessment of how many 'features' we'd be likely to
need to have the PG driver advertise? That would give a better idea of
the extent of the work involved.
In principal I'm not against the idea of having a function in each
driver that allows us to check for the presence of a given feature,
including by-version as required. What I'm against is that becoming a
mess of spaghetti...
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Khushboo Vashi | 2017-01-13 06:41:32 | [pgAdmin4][Patch]: RM 2069 - Wrong tablespace displayed in table properties |
Previous Message | Khushboo Vashi | 2017-01-13 04:55:27 | Re: [pgAdmin4][Patch]: RM 1730 - Role membership control display needs improvement |