I can test the PPAS stuff, but not the Greenplum objects. But... they
shouldn't be an issue - if an object is derived from pgSchema, you can
(and should use GetSchema(). If it's derived from a pgTable, you
probably want the table name too. If it's derived from pgObject,
pgServer, pgDatabase, then there's no schema available.
Ok. No problems here.
- First, the patch exhibits exactly the problem I was talking about.
See the attached screenshot, which is just a mess. All of the names
(server, object, username etc) are real. None are made up. And yes,
despite what Microsoft seem to be wanting people to do from Windows 8
onwards, I usually don't have full screen windows, but tend to work
with smaller ones side-by-side.
Really. Your servers have very long names. This should happen only at lower resolutions.
And if we put a configuration option? The user decides if he wants this option or not.
Or to put this information somewhere else, but where?
- Not only do I see truncated names, but more importantly the "Done."
is not visible. That is *essential*, for obvious reasons.
Yes, I agree.
- We try to avoid referring to servers by their hostname/IP address in
the UI (anywhere we do, is an oversight). You should be showing the
name. In my case, for remote servers that tends to be the hostname
anyway. For local servers though, it's usually a string like
"PostgreSQL 9.1" or "Postgres Plus Advanced Server 9.1". The reasoning
is that the name is a memorable string that the user can easily
recognise, whilst the hostname or IP address usually isn't (for
example, Amazon EC2 hostnames - which of course, are also very long).
Here, also without problems. I agree too.