

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Iavor Raytchev [mailto:iavor.raytchev@verysmall.org] 
> Sent: 30 August 2002 16:44
> To: pgsql-hackers; pgsql-interfaces
> Subject: [HACKERS] pgaccess - where to store the own data
> 
> 
> Hello everybody,
> 
> There is an open question we need broad opinion on.
> 
> Currently pgaccess stores its own data in the database it 
> works with. Some people do not like that. To store it 
> elsewhere invokes a number of issues such as:
> 
> - where is this somewhere
> - converting form all versions to the new
> - etc.
> 
> What do people think about this. Is it so bad that the own 
> data is stored in the database pgaccess works with?

I had the same trouble with pgAdmin, especially with pgAdmin I which had
a whole host of objects server-side. I also found that people didn't
like it, but where else do you store the data? 

pgAdmin II no longer uses such tables, but to get over the problem as
best I could, I added a cleanup option to pgAdmin I that removed all
server side objects in one go.

Regards, Dave.

Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:50:52 +0100
"Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
Re: [HACKERS] pgaccess - where to store the own data
> > What do people think about this. Is it so bad that the own 
> > data is stored in the database pgaccess works with?
> 
> pgAdmin II no longer uses such tables, but to get over the problem as
> best I could, I added a cleanup option to pgAdmin I that removed all
> server side objects in one go.

What does pgAdmin II do instead?  Or, how did you solve the problem?

Also, just to put my two cents in, I and others I have worked with 
don't like admin tools mucking up the databases we're working on.  So, I
think it's a good idea to find some solution.

One thought is to use a completely separate database, but also allow it
to be stored in the current database if the user wants it too.  This
also solves the case of a user that can't create a new database for his
admin tool (permissions etc...).  Also, it might be cleaner now that we
have schemea support to create one pgadmin, or pgaccess schemea in the
database, that handled all the others.


30 Aug 2002 13:59:22 -0400
"Matthew T. OConnor" <matthew@zeut.net>
Re: [HACKERS] pgaccess - where to store the own data
Matthew T. OConnor wrote:
> One thought is to use a completely separate database, but also allow it
> to be stored in the current database if the user wants it too.  This
> also solves the case of a user that can't create a new database for his
> admin tool (permissions etc...).  Also, it might be cleaner now that we
> have schemea support to create one pgadmin, or pgaccess schemea in the
> database, that handled all the others.
> 

As someone else mentioned (I think), even using a separate schema is not 
always an acceptable option. If you are using a "packaged" application 
(whether commercial or open source), you usually don't want *any* 
changes to the vendor provided database. Particularly with commercial 
software, that can mean loss of, or problems with, technical support, or 
problems when upgrading.

Joe


Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:12:28 -0700
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
Re: [HACKERS] pgaccess - where to store the own data
> As someone else mentioned (I think), even using a separate schema is not
> always an acceptable option. If you are using a "packaged" application
> (whether commercial or open source), you usually don't want *any*
> changes to the vendor provided database. Particularly with commercial
> software, that can mean loss of, or problems with, technical support, or
> problems when upgrading.

Agreed, but if the information is to be stored using the database server at 
all, then I think this option should be left in since some users probably 
don't mind the clutter, and will not be allowed to create a new database or 
schemea.

Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:43:38 -0400
"Matthew T. OConnor" <matthew@zeut.net>
Re: [HACKERS] pgaccess - where to store the own data
On Wednesday 04 September 2002 17:07, Brett Schwarz wrote:
> But in relational theory, doesn't relations refer to what we commonly
> refer to as tables? I think this would be confusing as well. However, I
> do agree that it would be cool to have it automatically generated...

In MS Access they can be a combination of Queries and Tables.

Not knowing any better, if it a relationship of any kind, then call it a 
relation. At least us unwashed from the MS Access world would get
a better handle on it. ( if that is what they really are )
John


>
> On Wed, 2002-09-04 at 10:00, Iavor Raytchev wrote:
> > Ross and Iavor:
> > > > > BTW, has the 'schema' tab been renamed yet? With actual
> > > > > schema
> > > > > in 7.3, that'll get confusing.
> > > >
> > > > Not renamed yet.
> > >
> > > In which case, we need to come up with a different name. How
> > > does
> > > "diagrams" strike you all?
> >
> > Hm... In MS Access it is called 'Relations' which sounds kind of
> > correct. Basically now we just display them, so 'Diagrams' could be
> > correct for us for now. In MS Access the relations are actually built
> > there. That's what I would like us to do - use the current 'Schema' tab
> > (they are not tabs anymore in the new interface) and make it able to
> > build relations (represented in the code with referential integrity).
> > Then 'Diagrams' would not fit, but 'Relations'. Also 'References'.
> >
> > Iavor

-- 
John Turner
JCI Inc.
http://home.ntelos.net/~JLT
"Just because you do not know the answer
does not mean that someone else does"
Stephen J. Gould, {rip}

Wed, 4 Sep 2002 13:54:19 +0000
"John L. Turner" <jlt@wvinter.net>
Re: [pgaccess-developers] the current 'schema' tab - renaming ideas
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 02:43:38PM -0400, Matthew T. OConnor wrote:
> > As someone else mentioned (I think), even using a separate schema is not
> > always an acceptable option. If you are using a "packaged" application
> > (whether commercial or open source), you usually don't want *any*
> > changes to the vendor provided database. Particularly with commercial
> > software, that can mean loss of, or problems with, technical support, or
> > problems when upgrading.
> 
> Agreed, but if the information is to be stored using the database server at 
> all, then I think this option should be left in since some users probably 
> don't mind the clutter, and will not be allowed to create a new database or 
> schemea.

I'm a bit late on this discussion, but I, for one, have liked having
some of the pgaccess info stored with the database. That way, no matter
what machine I connect to the DB from, I get the same set of functions,
queries, and schema-documents.

BTW, has the 'schema' tab been renamed yet? With actual schema in 7.3,
that'll get confusing.

Ross

Wed, 4 Sep 2002 10:19:49 -0500
"Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm@rice.edu>
Re: pgaccess - where to store the own data

Ross wrote:

> I'm a bit late on this discussion, but I, for one, have liked
> having
> some of the pgaccess info stored with the database. That way,
> no matter
> what machine I connect to the DB from, I get the same set of
> functions,
> queries, and schema-documents.

Very much true.

A wiki page has been started on that topic - feel free to contribute to
the methods and their pros and cons, as well to the proposed final
approach.

http://www.pgaccess.org/index.php?page=WhereToStoreThePgAccessOwnData

> BTW, has the 'schema' tab been renamed yet? With actual schema
> in 7.3,
> that'll get confusing.

Not renamed yet.


Wed, 4 Sep 2002 18:24:10 +0200
"Iavor Raytchev" <iavor.raytchev@verysmall.org>
Re: pgaccess - where to store the own data
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 06:24:10PM +0200, Iavor Raytchev wrote:
 
> A wiki page has been started on that topic - feel free to contribute to
> the methods and their pros and cons, as well to the proposed final
> approach.
 
> http://www.pgaccess.org/index.php?page=WhereToStoreThePgAccessOwnData

I'll take a look.

> > BTW, has the 'schema' tab been renamed yet? With actual schema
> > in 7.3, that'll get confusing.
 
> Not renamed yet.

In which case, we need to come up with a different name. How does
"diagrams" strike you all?

Ross  (I removed HACKERS from the CC)

Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:45:58 -0500
"Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm@rice.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] pgaccess - where to store the own data
Diagrams makes sense to me...

On Wed, 2002-09-04 at 09:45, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 06:24:10PM +0200, Iavor Raytchev wrote:
>  
> > A wiki page has been started on that topic - feel free to contribute to
> > the methods and their pros and cons, as well to the proposed final
> > approach.
>  
> > http://www.pgaccess.org/index.php?page=WhereToStoreThePgAccessOwnData
> 
> I'll take a look.
> 
> > > BTW, has the 'schema' tab been renamed yet? With actual schema
> > > in 7.3, that'll get confusing.
>  
> > Not renamed yet.
> 
> In which case, we need to come up with a different name. How does
> "diagrams" strike you all?
> 
> Ross  (I removed HACKERS from the CC)
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
-- 
Brett Schwarz
brett_schwarz AT yahoo.com


04 Sep 2002 09:57:09 -0700
Brett Schwarz <brett_schwarz@yahoo.com>
Re: [HACKERS] pgaccess - where to store the own data
Ross and Iavor:

> > > BTW, has the 'schema' tab been renamed yet? With actual
> > > schema
> > > in 7.3, that'll get confusing.
>
> > Not renamed yet.
>
> In which case, we need to come up with a different name. How
> does
> "diagrams" strike you all?

Hm... In MS Access it is called 'Relations' which sounds kind of
correct. Basically now we just display them, so 'Diagrams' could be
correct for us for now. In MS Access the relations are actually built
there. That's what I would like us to do - use the current 'Schema' tab
(they are not tabs anymore in the new interface) and make it able to
build relations (represented in the code with referential integrity).
Then 'Diagrams' would not fit, but 'Relations'. Also 'References'.

Iavor


Wed, 4 Sep 2002 19:00:29 +0200
"Iavor Raytchev" <iavor.raytchev@verysmall.org>
the current 'schema' tab - renaming ideas
But in relational theory, doesn't relations refer to what we commonly
refer to as tables? I think this would be confusing as well. However, I
do agree that it would be cool to have it automatically generated...

On Wed, 2002-09-04 at 10:00, Iavor Raytchev wrote:
> Ross and Iavor:
> 
> > > > BTW, has the 'schema' tab been renamed yet? With actual
> > > > schema
> > > > in 7.3, that'll get confusing.
> >
> > > Not renamed yet.
> >
> > In which case, we need to come up with a different name. How
> > does
> > "diagrams" strike you all?
> 
> Hm... In MS Access it is called 'Relations' which sounds kind of
> correct. Basically now we just display them, so 'Diagrams' could be
> correct for us for now. In MS Access the relations are actually built
> there. That's what I would like us to do - use the current 'Schema' tab
> (they are not tabs anymore in the new interface) and make it able to
> build relations (represented in the code with referential integrity).
> Then 'Diagrams' would not fit, but 'Relations'. Also 'References'.
> 
> Iavor
-- 
Brett Schwarz
brett_schwarz AT yahoo.com


04 Sep 2002 10:07:59 -0700
Brett Schwarz <brett_schwarz@yahoo.com>
Re: [pgaccess-developers] the current 'schema' tab - renaming ideas

Brett:

> But in relational theory, doesn't relations refer to what we commonly
> refer to as tables? I think this would be confusing as well.
> However, I
> do agree that it would be cool to have it automatically generated...

I am not an expert in relational theory... If it is so - then that's bad
name. But if the native speakers and relational theory experts (joke :)
agree that what we have now as 'Schema' can be called 'Diagrams' and
used for creating different documentations, etc., and what is left is
the referential integrity (looking at it and visual management) than we
can call the new thing just 'Visual referential integrity manager' :)))
if not too long...


Wed, 4 Sep 2002 19:14:34 +0200
"Iavor Raytchev" <iavor.raytchev@verysmall.org>
Re: [pgaccess-developers] the current 'schema' tab - renaming ideas


>>  Hm... In MS Access it is called 'Relations' which sounds kind of
>>  correct. 

Actually, the window is called "Relationships", not "Relations"....

-- 
terry

Wed, 4 Sep 2002 14:36:25 -0400
terry <tg5027@citlink.net>
Re: the current 'schema' tab - renaming ideas