Re: So... you're all just going to ignore anyone who asks about the HUGE issues with pgAdmin 4?

Have you tried running in server mode on Windows? You launch a lightweight
process on your windows computer, open a browser and from there can connect
to local and remote psotgres instances on any platform. I think a lot of
people are confused by the "server" mode an assume that you have to run the
server on the postgres instance, which is not the case.

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Melvin Davidson <melvin6925(at)yahoo(dot)com>
wrote:

> *> Are computer professionals still using MS Windows?*
>
> *Yes, we use MS Windows with PgAdmin to connect to PostgreSQL on LINUX
> systems.*
>
> Melvin Davidson 🎸
> Cell 720-320-0155 <(720)%20320-0155>
> I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
> wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.
> www.youtube.com/unusedhero/videos
> Folk Alley - All Folk - 24 Hours a day
> www.folkalley.com
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> On Thursday, June 15, 2017, 9:15:59 PM EDT, Richard Greenwood <
> richard(dot)greenwood(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> Like is this a charade? Am I hallucinating? Are computer professionals
> still using MS Windows?
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Patrick Headley <pheadley(at)linxco-inc(dot)com
> > wrote:
>
> It doesn't sound like anyone is ignoring the problem but some issues are
> harder to fix than others. If pgAdmin4 isn't working for you, use something
> else. No one is saying you have to use pgAdmin4.
>
> While you are accusing many people of having something wrong in their
> heads I have observed that you are the only one that is flipping out over
> the issue. As I stated in a prior message, I was dissatisfied with pgAdmin4
> on Windows so I got pgAdmin3 for Windows and PostgreSQL 9.6 from another
> vendor that is maintaining pgAdmin3. No need to panic. Still getting my
> work done. When pgAdmin4 works well (and it's getting there and it's
> definitely not the worst performing software that I use on a daily basis),
> I'll make the switch.
>
> Another way of looking at the situation is that someone has to test the
> software. It cannot be up to David alone. There are many people doing this
> and not flipping out about the issues but simply presenting them to David
> so they can be fixed. It's a process. No software is perfect on every
> machine and platform before being released. There is no way for David to
> test every possible scenario and he has explained that already. It takes a
> community of cooperation to make it right.
>
> I hope you can find a solution that works for you while David works out
> the bugs in pgAdmin4.
>
> *Patrick Headley*
> Linx Consulting, Inc.
> pheadley(at)linxco-inc(dot)com
> (303) 916-5522
> www.linxco-inc.com
> On 06/15/2017 11:20 AM, David G. Johnston wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:05 AM, <grekloedlc(at)tutanota(dot)com> wrote:
>
> It doesn't seem possible to get through to you. Whatever you spent those
> one million dollars on, it sure as hell wasn't related to pgAdmin in any
> way. More like very heavy drugs, if you think this is even acceptable for
> pre-pre-pre-alpha software. It's literally *unusable*. You get it?
> UNUSABLE. Anyone who claims otherwise must have something wrong in their
> head.
>
> Are you just going to keep on this charade or actually fix the problem?
> Do I have to switch from PostgreSQL to something else just because the
> admin tool is broken beyond the point of being usable to anyone? This is
> insanity.
>
>
> ​There isn't a monopoly on GUI admin software for PostgresSQL. While it
> has its quirks I find PostgreSQL Maestro to be quite functional for my
> needs - at least the ones I don't solve by writing scripts and executing
> them via psql. The server is going to function the same no matter which
> external administration/client tools you choose to use.
>
> I rarely used pgAdmin3, I found it to be "too graphical" if that makes
> sense, and haven't tried pgAdmin4. My scanning of this mailing list leads
> me to believe what you are saying is reasonably accurate even if your tone
> is not: there are a number of active discussions on this very topic on this
> mailing list right now.
>
> David J.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Richard W. Greenwood, PLS
> www.greenwoodmap.com
>

--
Richard W. Greenwood, PLS
www.greenwoodmap.com