Re: Patch: New field in frmMain statusbar

I think so - I realise it's not the display name (which would be
ideal), but it is a condensed name that fully describes the
connection.

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Adam Scott <adam.c.scott@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.c.scott@gmail.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@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.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
>>
>>
>



--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company