| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
|---|
| From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Subject: | Re: adminpack and pg_catalog |
| Date: | 2006-10-21 08:52:37 |
| Message-ID: | 00f801c6f4ee$2d5a25d2$6a01a8c0@valehousing.co.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
-----Original Message-----
From: "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>; "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
Sent: 21/10/06 02:03
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] adminpack and pg_catalog
On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 22:59 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Nothing except initdb should add objects in pg_catalog. AFAICS,
> adminpack doesn't have any special requirements, so it should behave
> like all other contrib modules.
> Okay. Are there any opinions on whether we should make this change to
> contrib/adminpack now (i.e. during the 8.2 beta), later (for 8.3), or
not all at?
If you change it you will make it useless as pgAdmin won't necessarily find the functions it expects. You might as well just remove it (which will almost certainly cause delays to pgAdmin - and pgInstallers - release as I'll need to find time to put it all back how it was).
Regards, Dave
| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: adminpack and pg_catalog |
| Date: | 2006-10-21 10:37:02 |
| Message-ID: | 200610211237.02816.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dave Page wrote:
> If you change it you will make it useless as pgAdmin won't
> necessarily find the functions it expects. You might as well just
> remove it (which will almost certainly cause delays to pgAdmin - and
> pgInstallers - release as I'll need to find time to put it all back
> how it was).
If pgAdmin is going to dictate what we do with adminpack, adminpack
should rather be shipped with pgAdmin.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
| From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: adminpack and pg_catalog |
| Date: | 2006-10-22 15:23:02 |
| Message-ID: | 1161530582.4211.72.camel@silverbirch.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2006-10-21 at 12:37 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
> > If you change it you will make it useless as pgAdmin won't
> > necessarily find the functions it expects. You might as well just
> > remove it (which will almost certainly cause delays to pgAdmin - and
> > pgInstallers - release as I'll need to find time to put it all back
> > how it was).
>
> If pgAdmin is going to dictate what we do with adminpack, adminpack
> should rather be shipped with pgAdmin.
Admin tools are critical.
adminpack is being made available for any and all admin packages, so all
tools, including for example psql *could* be enhanced to use those.
Whether they do is up to them, but at least their life is potentially
easier.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com