Re: Patch: New field in frmMain statusbar

Being consistent with the frmQuery probably helps the user as well. Here's
the patch to display the connection name as it is displayed in the frmQuery.

Thank you,
Adam

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:

> I think so - I realise it's not the display name (which would be
> ideal), but it is a condensed name that fully describes the
> connection.
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Adam Scott <adam(dot)c(dot)scott(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > If it displayed what's displayed in the Query editor would that be
> better?
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Adam
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Adam Scott <adam(dot)c(dot)scott(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> If you have a development host and a production host, the database names
> >> will be the same. I think the value of the having the new field goes
> away
> >> if you exclude the hostname. You won't know what host the object you
> are
> >> selecting belongs to. That could be the difference between modifying an
> >> object in development and production.
> >>
> >> It seems to me that what you could say about the display name is what
> >> could be said about the connection's display name in the tree control
> since
> >> this is what is displayed (plus the database name).
> >>
> >> What the patch displays answers the questions, "What connection am I
> on?"
> >> "What database am I on?"
> >>
> >> I guess I can work on adding another patch that allows you to customize
> >> what is displayed using frmOptions...?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Magnus Hagander <
> magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >> > The part that changed is just the one that added db1 and db2,
> right?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> It's the server display name *and* the database name, so to give a
> >>> >> (redacted) example from my machine, I would have:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> aws-ap-southeast-1b.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com (aws-ap-southeast-1b.
> >>> >> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com:5432):postgres
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Which as you can see is quite long.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > I thought the point of display names was to have them nice and short
> :)
> >>> > I've
> >>> > certainly never used displaynames that are that long.
> >>>
> >>> I generally use the full hostnames (as I have machines in multiple
> >>> domains) - and in the places that you currently see them, that length
> >>> is actually fine.
> >>>
> >>> > Yes, I totally see with names like that it becomes annoying, and
> >>> > certainly
> >>> > not easy to parse. Perhaps what we really shoul dhave is just
> >>> > displayname +
> >>> > databasename, and exclude the actual hostname?
> >>>
> >>> That would be an improvement, certainly.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Dave Page
> >>> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
> >>> Twitter: @pgsnake
> >>>
> >>> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> >>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Page
> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
> Twitter: @pgsnake
>
> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>