Re: Patch: New field in frmMain statusbar

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
>>
>
>