Re: Do we need yet another IDE (SQL development assistant) for PostgreSQL?

пн, 16 июл. 2018 г. в 15:01, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>:

>
>
> 2018-07-16 13:52 GMT+02:00 Dmitry Igrishin <dmitigr(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>
>>
>>
>> пн, 16 июл. 2018 г. в 14:26, <kpi6288(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>>
>>> We – and the majority of our customers - are mainly focused on Windows.
>>> We use pgadmin iii and our own assistants. pgadmin iv ist still too slow on
>>> Windows compared to pgadmin iii. That is one reason why we still use
>>> PostgreSQL 9.6.
>>>
>> For performance reasons I mostly use the C++ language. Thus, I think the
>> performance
>> should not be a problem here.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That said, one requirement on a commercial tool for us would be royalty
>>> free distribution to our customers. It should however provide the functions
>>> of pgadmin iii.
>>>
>> Do you need an administration tool or an assistant for database
>> development? I conceived Pgspa as a
>> development tool, which works with source files organized in the usual
>> way. For example, the sources
>> of the schema "foo" could be organized as:
>> foo/functions/*.sql
>> /views/*.sql
>> /triggers/*.sql
>> ...
>> The developer works with files rather than objects retrieved from the
>> database and loaded
>> into the tree view of the GUI (like in pgAdmin and most of other similar
>> tools). Though, the
>> database browser GUI is a useful feature of course, and should be
>> implemented.
>>
>
> Few years I am thinking about new IDE for stored procedures. Probably It
> should not be written from scratch, but It should to be multiplatform.
>
Me too :-) I have a command line prototype of the tool with the basic
functional. It's written
in C++ by using the Pgfe client library and in PL/pgSQL as the PostgreSQL
extension.

> what can be nice
>
> 1. source should be in files with GIT support
>
+1. It's the main feature. Already done.

> 2. integration with developer databese + well autocomplete support
>
It's the most hard part and could be implemented later.

> 3. formatting - SQL, PL, ..
>
Good feature for future releases.

> 4. online code validation
>
Not sure I understand. Can you please elaborate what do you mean?

> 5. The should not be strong relation between files and schemas. Now is not
> too hard to have information what content is in some file. There can be
> physical organization (by files), and logical (by schemas, functions,
> views, ...)
>
I agree and there is no problems with it. But logical organization would be
a bit simpler
to implement, and would be suitable for the most users. Also it can be even
helpful when someone
working with foreign project since the database objects are arranged in
shelves.

> 6. good performance is important - but Java is good enough today - DBeaver
> is has good speed
>
My primary (and favorite) language still C++ :-)

>
> Regards
>
> Good luck - can be pretty hard to write it.
>
Thank you, Pavel! But I haven't decided about starting this project, since
I'm not sure about
the interest from the community.

>
> p.s. IDE for developers is some different than admin tool for
> administrators. Should be decided what is target.
>
Yeah, I'm talking about the tool for developers here.