Re: Patch: New field in frmMain statusbar

Is the last patch okay? If there's something more required or anything
please let me know.

Thank you,
Adam

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Adam Scott <adam(dot)c(dot)scott(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>