Обсуждение: [pgadmin-support] making me love pgAdmin III

Hey,

 

I don’t mean to hurt anyone’s feelings or anything, but is it not obvious to everyone that pgAdmin 4 (I have version 1.4) is bloody horrendous?  It is absolutely as slow as Christmas.  It’s use of screen real-estate is poor.  I was never a huge fan of pgAdmin III; I mean, it seemed to do its job okay, but after using pgAdmin 4, suddenly I have newfound respect for pgAdmin III.

On 2017-05-18 21:09, Eric Hill wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings or anything, but is it not
> obvious to everyone that pgAdmin 4 (I have version 1.4) is bloody
> horrendous? It is absolutely as slow as Christmas. It's use of screen
> real-estate is poor. I was never a huge fan of pgAdmin III; I mean, it
> seemed to do its job okay, but after using pgAdmin 4, suddenly I have
> newfound respect for pgAdmin III.
> 
> Sorry,
> 
> Eric

Yep, it's horrible.

Why everything has to look like a web application is beyond me. If I 
wanted that, I could use something like phppgadmin.

Richard

I think pgAdmin4 is a new project and many enhancements could be made but
for now it is a good tool for managing the database via web interface.

I think the template is not horrible, that app is for managing, not for
shopping and ocio.

Regards.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: pgadmin-support-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgadmin-support-owner@postgresql.org] En nombre de richard@xentu.com
Enviado el: jueves, 18 de mayo de 2017 05:15 p. m.
Para: pgadmin-support@postgresql.org
Asunto: Re: [pgadmin-support] making me love pgAdmin III

On 2017-05-18 21:09, Eric Hill wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings or anything, but is it not 
> obvious to everyone that pgAdmin 4 (I have version 1.4) is bloody 
> horrendous? It is absolutely as slow as Christmas. It's use of screen 
> real-estate is poor. I was never a huge fan of pgAdmin III; I mean, it 
> seemed to do its job okay, but after using pgAdmin 4, suddenly I have 
> newfound respect for pgAdmin III.
> 
> Sorry,
> 
> Eric

Yep, it's horrible.

Why everything has to look like a web application is beyond me. If I wanted
that, I could use something like phppgadmin.

Richard


--
Sent via pgadmin-support mailing list (pgadmin-support@postgresql.org) To
make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-support

Dave,

In addition, the single biggest issue I have with PgAdmin4 is the new window structure.  Where PgAdminIII was natively installed, and thus embraced all the multiple window functionality therein, PgAdmin4 is constrained to a single application window.  This makes it impossible to embrace multiple monitors unless you open up multiple application instances, which I don't even know if supported.  Basically, where I used to be able to spread windows and queries in PgAdminIII across all my monitors as necessary to compare tables, and copy and paste code between Queries, I am now constrained to a single window and switching between tabs that are named Query-1, Query-2, etc. regardless of whether it is a table, query, etc. being viewed.  As Melvin stated, I do not understand why the most basic functionality and flexibility of the software was abandoned, or not included in the initial release of the new software.

Even if you do pop a query out to a separate window, it is constrained within the application window, and the behavior is not consistent.

Here are a few others:

1.  Aforementioned Query/Table naming.  Naming everything Query-1, etc. regardless of whether a table view, or a query is making it less informative. 
2.  Speed of PgAdmin4 compared to PgAdminIII is a major issue.  I have queries and tables that hang in 4 which work when I open up using 3.
3.  Change of display of Geometry Reference for PostGIS extension.  Instead of referencing the geometry type and spatial reference, it lists an integer that has no clear meaning.  It is a two or 3 step process to trace back to geometry type and spatial reference.
Old:  geometry(MultiPolygon,3500)
New:  geometry(896020)

I understand the urge and need to move to new technologies and practices for application development.  That should always be done in the context of preserving the usability of the existing software, and not losing the functionality already contained therein.

Thanks,
Russell

On 2017-05-18 18:27, Melvin Davidson wrote:

Dave,

 

If you are looking for constructive criticism, then the following are options that

were in PgAdmin III and at minimum should be added back to PgAdmin4.

 

1. The ability to choose a specific font for displays or query window
2. Choose colors for query options
3. Favorites & macros in query screen
4. Choose colors for server status

 

Personally, I still cannot comprehend why all options/features that were in PgAdmin III

were not included in PgAdmin4. I have never heard of any other software program where

options/features from a previous release were not included in the newest release.

Compare the options window in PgAdmin4 to PgAdmin III and you will see there is a great

deal more missing.

 

As to your statement "the number of people I've had complimenting pgAdmin 4 is probably

20x the number who have said they don't like it.", those compliments must be coming to

another email address other than pgadmin-support, because I have not seen them.

 

I do appreciate what you and your team are doing, but as I have said before, I believe

PgAdmin4 was a hurried release and more testing should have been done before it went GA.

 

Melvin Davidson 🎸
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

---

From: Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>
To: Eric Hill <Eric.Hill@jmp.com>
Cc: "pgadmin-support@postgresql.org" <pgadmin-support@postgresql.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: [pgadmin-support] making me love pgAdmin III

 

On 18 May 2017, at 21:09, Eric Hill <Eric.Hill@jmp.com> wrote:

 

 

Hey,

 

I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings or anything, but is it not obvious to everyone that pgAdmin 4 (I have version 1.4) is bloody horrendous?  It is absolutely as slow as Christmas.  It's use of screen real-estate is poor.  I was never a huge fan of pgAdmin III; I mean, it seemed to do its job okay, but after using pgAdmin 4, suddenly I have newfound respect for pgAdmin III.

Not to me, because the number of people I've had complimenting pgAdmin 4 is probably 20x the number who have said they don't like it. Which is a good sign - normally people who don't like something are far more likely to say something.

 

Either way, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. pgAdmin 4 is far more stable than pgAdmin 3 was, has attracted more new developers in a year than pgAdmin 3 had in 15, and continues to improve with every release. I'm very proud of the way the team have built such a complex application in such a short space of time that many people have told me they like.

 

You can't please everyone unfortunately, but then a) it's free (despite being estimated at over $2M worth of work), and b) it's open source so those that are inclined can help improve it further.

 

Constructive feedback is always welcome of course. In your case maybe you could explain how you're using it such that you see slow response. For me, it performs well, even on my low powered 1.2GHz MacBook. It's naturally slower than pgAdmin 3 of course, as it's not a native application, but it still outpaces my ability to drive it and I'm no slouch behind the keyboard.

 

Regards, Dave

18 maja 2017 22:43 - "Dave Page" <dpage@pgadmin.org>:

> On 18 May 2017, at 21:09, Eric Hill <Eric.Hill@jmp.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey,
>>
>> I don’t mean to hurt anyone’s feelings or anything, but is it not obvious to everyone that pgAdmin
>> 4 (I have version 1.4) is bloody horrendous? It is absolutely as slow as Christmas. It’s use of
>> screen real-estate is poor. I was never a huge fan of pgAdmin III; I mean, it seemed to do its job
>> okay, but after using pgAdmin 4, suddenly I have newfound respect for pgAdmin III.
>
> Not to me, because the number of people I've had complimenting pgAdmin 4 is probably 20x the number
> who have said they don't like it. Which is a good sign - normally people who don't like something
> are far more likely to say something.
>
> Either way, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. pgAdmin 4 is far more stable than pgAdmin 3 was,
> has attracted more new developers in a year than pgAdmin 3 had in 15, and continues to improve with
> every release. I'm very proud of the way the team have built such a complex application in such a
> short space of time that many people have told me they like.
>
> You can't please everyone unfortunately, but then a) it's free (despite being estimated at over $2M
> worth of work), and b) it's open source so those that are inclined can help improve it further.
>
> Constructive feedback is always welcome of course. In your case maybe you could explain how you're
> using it such that you see slow response. For me, it performs well, even on my low powered 1.2GHz
> MacBook. It's naturally slower than pgAdmin 3 of course, as it's not a native application, but it
> still outpaces my ability to drive it and I'm no slouch behind the keyboard.

You don't care what You users say about Your software??? That's a nice statement...
I've posted here a list of what is missing/wrong in new pgAdmin - did You even commented on that?
What is this 'Constructive feedback'?

How 4 is more stable than 3? Please explain it to us... In 1.4 - query SELECT 2/0; returns
successfully...
And please, please explain to us how 'less and slower' is better than 'more and faster'...

I must ask it - do You even work with databases? Because from how You made new pgAdmin, it looks
like You don't have a clue what real dbadmins do...

You say pgAdmin 4 attracted more developers... I don't know how You measure it but for me - a guy
with more than 10 years work experience with PostgreSQL - it's a sign to move to another db...

I must say - You had a possibility that few developers have - make software from scratch - and You
made all possible mistakes:
- wrong toolkit (html... really??? - so many fast, portable toolkits and You picked the slowest...)
- less functionality (can't even copy/paste data from query...)
- waaay slower (10 times at least for everything - queries, browsing - even ui drags behind mouse)
- released alpha as stable.
- ...

--
Tomek

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Tomek <tomek@apostata.org> wrote:
> 18 maja 2017 22:43 - "Dave Page" <dpage@pgadmin.org>:
>
>> On 18 May 2017, at 21:09, Eric Hill <Eric.Hill@jmp.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> I don’t mean to hurt anyone’s feelings or anything, but is it not obvious to everyone that pgAdmin
>>> 4 (I have version 1.4) is bloody horrendous? It is absolutely as slow as Christmas. It’s use of
>>> screen real-estate is poor. I was never a huge fan of pgAdmin III; I mean, it seemed to do its job
>>> okay, but after using pgAdmin 4, suddenly I have newfound respect for pgAdmin III.
>>
>> Not to me, because the number of people I've had complimenting pgAdmin 4 is probably 20x the number
>> who have said they don't like it. Which is a good sign - normally people who don't like something
>> are far more likely to say something.
>>
>> Either way, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. pgAdmin 4 is far more stable than pgAdmin 3 was,
>> has attracted more new developers in a year than pgAdmin 3 had in 15, and continues to improve with
>> every release. I'm very proud of the way the team have built such a complex application in such a
>> short space of time that many people have told me they like.
>>
>> You can't please everyone unfortunately, but then a) it's free (despite being estimated at over $2M
>> worth of work), and b) it's open source so those that are inclined can help improve it further.
>>
>> Constructive feedback is always welcome of course. In your case maybe you could explain how you're
>> using it such that you see slow response. For me, it performs well, even on my low powered 1.2GHz
>> MacBook. It's naturally slower than pgAdmin 3 of course, as it's not a native application, but it
>> still outpaces my ability to drive it and I'm no slouch behind the keyboard.
>
> You don't care what You users say about Your software??? That's a nice statement...

Twisting my words is a great way to make your point. Kudos.

> I've posted here a list of what is missing/wrong in new pgAdmin - did You even commented on that?

Posted here? The website is quite clear that bugs and feature requests
should be logged as tickets on our Redmine instance. There is no
guarantee developers will read every message here.

> What is this 'Constructive feedback'?

Constructive feedback is that which describes an issue and steps to
reproduce it with the aim of helping the developers resolve it, or in
the case of a new feature, describing what is required and why it
would be useful.

Feedback along the lines of "It's crap and I hate it" is unhelpful and
will likely be ignored.

> How 4 is more stable than 3? Please explain it to us...

Because it doesn't crash every 5 minutes? Because it doesn't go nuts
if it loses an open database connection?

> In 1.4 - query SELECT 2/0; returns
> successfully...

Oh? I haven't seen that logged. When I try it, I get the result in the
attached screenshot.

> And please, please explain to us how 'less and slower' is better than 'more and faster'...

The vast majority of the "more" wasn't used by anyone. Did you ever
create an Operator Class? Or use pgScript for example?

Sure, there are some things we left out that we didn't realise users
use - and we're adding them back in.

As for the speed, yes, it's a little slower due to the architecture,
but we're talking fractions of a second (at least on all the machines
and virtual machines I've tested on). I know I still can't keep up
with it. The only exception I know of is the query tool with very
large results sets, which we've been working on and already have a WIP
patch that makes it ~20x *faster* than pgAdmin 3 in some large test
cases.

> I must ask it - do You even work with databases? Because from how You made new pgAdmin, it looks
> like You don't have a clue what real dbadmins do...
>
> You say pgAdmin 4 attracted more developers... I don't know how You measure it but for me - a guy
> with more than 10 years work experience with PostgreSQL - it's a sign to move to another db...
>
> I must say - You had a possibility that few developers have - make software from scratch - and You
> made all possible mistakes:
> - wrong toolkit (html... really??? - so many fast, portable toolkits and You picked the slowest...)

Oh? You have a better idea for something that we wanted to be able to
run over the web? Java or Flash perhaps?

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

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

-- 
Sent via pgadmin-support mailing list (pgadmin-support@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-support

On 2017-05-18 6:27 PM, Melvin Davidson wrote:
> I have never heard of any other software program where
> options/features from a previous release were not included in the newest release.

Oh really?  Excluding features/options when making major new versions happens 
all the time.

Look at a lot of the software Apple releases for example.  Intuit also did it 
with Quicken for another example.

The fact PgAdmin 4 lacks some features of PgAdmin 3 has a lot of precedent in 
the industry.

The fact is, every feature/option you have has costs to make it and costs to 
continue maintaining it, so sometimes taking things away is beneficial.  That's 
not to say that taking some things away isn't painful, but that's not the case 
with all features and options.

-- Darren Duncan

Am 19.05.2017 um 10:04 schrieb Dave Page:
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Tomek <tomek@apostata.org> wrote:
>> 18 maja 2017 22:43 - "Dave Page" <dpage@pgadmin.org>:
>>
>>> On 18 May 2017, at 21:09, Eric Hill <Eric.Hill@jmp.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey,
>>>>
>>>> I don’t mean to hurt anyone’s feelings or anything, but is it not obvious to everyone that pgAdmin
>>>> 4 (I have version 1.4) is bloody horrendous? It is absolutely as slow as Christmas. It’s use of
>>>> screen real-estate is poor. I was never a huge fan of pgAdmin III; I mean, it seemed to do its job
>>>> okay, but after using pgAdmin 4, suddenly I have newfound respect for pgAdmin III.
>>> Not to me, because the number of people I've had complimenting pgAdmin 4 is probably 20x the number
>>> who have said they don't like it. Which is a good sign - normally people who don't like something
>>> are far more likely to say something.
>>>
>>> Either way, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. pgAdmin 4 is far more stable than pgAdmin 3 was,
>>> has attracted more new developers in a year than pgAdmin 3 had in 15, and continues to improve with
>>> every release. I'm very proud of the way the team have built such a complex application in such a
>>> short space of time that many people have told me they like.
>>>
>>> You can't please everyone unfortunately, but then a) it's free (despite being estimated at over $2M
>>> worth of work), and b) it's open source so those that are inclined can help improve it further.
>>>
>>> Constructive feedback is always welcome of course. In your case maybe you could explain how you're
>>> using it such that you see slow response. For me, it performs well, even on my low powered 1.2GHz
>>> MacBook. It's naturally slower than pgAdmin 3 of course, as it's not a native application, but it
>>> still outpaces my ability to drive it and I'm no slouch behind the keyboard.
>> You don't care what You users say about Your software??? That's a nice statement...
> Twisting my words is a great way to make your point. Kudos.
>
>> I've posted here a list of what is missing/wrong in new pgAdmin - did You even commented on that?
> Posted here? The website is quite clear that bugs and feature requests
> should be logged as tickets on our Redmine instance. There is no
> guarantee developers will read every message here.
>
>> What is this 'Constructive feedback'?
> Constructive feedback is that which describes an issue and steps to
> reproduce it with the aim of helping the developers resolve it, or in
> the case of a new feature, describing what is required and why it
> would be useful.
>
> Feedback along the lines of "It's crap and I hate it" is unhelpful and
> will likely be ignored.
>
>> How 4 is more stable than 3? Please explain it to us...
> Because it doesn't crash every 5 minutes? Because it doesn't go nuts
> if it loses an open database connection?
>
>> In 1.4 - query SELECT 2/0; returns
>> successfully...
> Oh? I haven't seen that logged. When I try it, I get the result in the
> attached screenshot.
>
>> And please, please explain to us how 'less and slower' is better than 'more and faster'...
> The vast majority of the "more" wasn't used by anyone. Did you ever
> create an Operator Class? Or use pgScript for example?
>
> Sure, there are some things we left out that we didn't realise users
> use - and we're adding them back in.
>
> As for the speed, yes, it's a little slower due to the architecture,
> but we're talking fractions of a second (at least on all the machines
> and virtual machines I've tested on). I know I still can't keep up
> with it. The only exception I know of is the query tool with very
> large results sets, which we've been working on and already have a WIP
> patch that makes it ~20x *faster* than pgAdmin 3 in some large test
> cases.
>
>> I must ask it - do You even work with databases? Because from how You made new pgAdmin, it looks
>> like You don't have a clue what real dbadmins do...
>>
>> You say pgAdmin 4 attracted more developers... I don't know how You measure it but for me - a guy
>> with more than 10 years work experience with PostgreSQL - it's a sign to move to another db...
>>
>> I must say - You had a possibility that few developers have - make software from scratch - and You
>> made all possible mistakes:
>> - wrong toolkit (html... really??? - so many fast, portable toolkits and You picked the slowest...)
> Oh? You have a better idea for something that we wanted to be able to
> run over the web? Java or Flash perhaps?
>
>
I think, the community should stop blaming the developers for free 
Software. That is bad, seriously.
Of course we got issues in pgAdmin4 that need to be adressed. But remember:
they made the effort from native application to crossplatform browser 
compatible.
In my opinion, the declaration as stable was too early, but with that, 
the developers got also huge feedback.
So community, stop beeing a bully and be smart and constructive. Here is 
no place for ranting, but for critic.
I know some people are upset, but clarify it. For myself, i have also 
issues with pgAdmin4.
Thats why i switched to valentina studio. I can't use it in production 
right know.
Issues are for me slow query windows, disconnects, hanging queries and 
false time measurements.
I use pgScript for example on some tricky tasks. I will come back to 
pgAdmin4 when it got more mature,
I'll also try out the releases now and then to check if things changed.

But please, stop beeing a jerk. That helps no one. And respect the work 
the develops did around pgAdmin4.

19 maja 2017 10:04 - "Dave Page" <dpage@pgadmin.org>:

> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Tomek <tomek@apostata.org> wrote:
>
>> 18 maja 2017 22:43 - "Dave Page" <dpage@pgadmin.org>:
>
> On 18 May 2017, at 21:09, Eric Hill <Eric.Hill@jmp.com> wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> I don’t mean to hurt anyone’s feelings or anything, but is it not obvious to everyone that pgAdmin
>> 4 (I have version 1.4) is bloody horrendous? It is absolutely as slow as Christmas. It’s use of
>> screen real-estate is poor. I was never a huge fan of pgAdmin III; I mean, it seemed to do its job
>> okay, but after using pgAdmin 4, suddenly I have newfound respect for pgAdmin III.
>
> Not to me, because the number of people I've had complimenting pgAdmin 4 is probably 20x the number
> who have said they don't like it. Which is a good sign - normally people who don't like something
> are far more likely to say something.
>
> Either way, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. pgAdmin 4 is far more stable than pgAdmin 3 was,
> has attracted more new developers in a year than pgAdmin 3 had in 15, and continues to improve with
> every release. I'm very proud of the way the team have built such a complex application in such a
> short space of time that many people have told me they like.
>
> You can't please everyone unfortunately, but then a) it's free (despite being estimated at over $2M
> worth of work), and b) it's open source so those that are inclined can help improve it further.
>
> Constructive feedback is always welcome of course. In your case maybe you could explain how you're
> using it such that you see slow response. For me, it performs well, even on my low powered 1.2GHz
> MacBook. It's naturally slower than pgAdmin 3 of course, as it's not a native application, but it
> still outpaces my ability to drive it and I'm no slouch behind the keyboard.
>> You don't care what You users say about Your software??? That's a nice statement...
>
> Twisting my words is a great way to make your point. Kudos.

Twisting... Saying "I'm not going to lose sleep over it" means what - in case of someones concerns?

>> I've posted here a list of what is missing/wrong in new pgAdmin - did You even commented on that?
>
> Posted here? The website is quite clear that bugs and feature requests
> should be logged as tickets on our Redmine instance. There is no
> guarantee developers will read every message here.

I get the bugtracker - but my first list contains 19 cases (from one day of using) - cases that
every other dbms has, and previous version had...

- no favorites
- no recent queries
- no single line select (query tool)
- no notepad
- no bracket highlight (start-end, orphan)
- after every query result columns resize to some predefined width (should stay as set)
- no possibility to detach panel to window (multi monitor setup)
- view data result is shown without oid (no option to set it up)
- view data - disabled field edit when no primary key is set (that's why oids are for!)
- cannot select and copy fields from result
- triggers does not descent to its function (it's under properties)
- no object search
- no option to change database in query tool
- history in query tool is useless - can't see query if it is little longer, no copy/paste
- only one error message for every query error: "Not connected to the server or the connection to
the server has been closed." *other error instead*
- view data last/first 100 does not work - always first 100 *fixed*
- view data query is not editable (why is it there???)
- copy button does nothing
- global copy/paste mess - in one place Ctrl+C works other not, the same for context menu

>> What is this 'Constructive feedback'?
>
> Constructive feedback is that which describes an issue and steps to
> reproduce it with the aim of helping the developers resolve it, or in
> the case of a new feature, describing what is required and why it
> would be useful.
>
> Feedback along the lines of "It's crap and I hate it" is unhelpful and
> will likely be ignored.

Nobody said this - we all gave examples what is wrong with it...

>> How 4 is more stable than 3? Please explain it to us...
>
> Because it doesn't crash every 5 minutes? Because it doesn't go nuts
> if it loses an open database connection?

That doesn't mean more stable - that means You've fixed the bug (which everybody got used to)...

>> In 1.4 - query SELECT 2/0; returns
>> successfully...
>
> Oh? I haven't seen that logged. When I try it, I get the result in the
> attached screenshot.

https://ibb.co/eBbtdF

>> And please, please explain to us how 'less and slower' is better than 'more and faster'...
>
> The vast majority of the "more" wasn't used by anyone. Did you ever
> create an Operator Class? Or use pgScript for example?

Look at the list above...

> Sure, there are some things we left out that we didn't realise users
> use - and we're adding them back in.

Some things??? See the list above.
And more:
- can't copy data from result
- can't resize rows
- no code folding
- how can i insert new row?

> As for the speed, yes, it's a little slower due to the architecture,
> but we're talking fractions of a second (at least on all the machines
> and virtual machines I've tested on). I know I still can't keep up
> with it. The only exception I know of is the query tool with very
> large results sets, which we've been working on and already have a WIP
> patch that makes it ~20x *faster* than pgAdmin 3 in some large test
> cases.

I don't see it - I see query that is running 14 seconds in v4 but 3.5 seconds in v3, seconds pass
before new query tab opens, seconds pass before browse tab opens, click properties count to 10 -
properties appear, table properties - You can see switches flipping on columns tab, try moving any
window - drags behind mouse, try put back accidentally detached tab, and so on...
In v3 3 dbs connected 4 query windows, 2 browse windows: private memory: 35 MBytes
In v4 1 db connected 1 query window: private memory: 600 MBytes
In v4 constant CPU usage around 10% (damn dashboard)

> Oh? You have a better idea for something that we wanted to be able to
> run over the web? Java or Flash perhaps?

My objection for html is for standalone app - not webapp.
You know that every major databases does not use web as primary dbms yes? But even if we use it as
a server side only (like phppgadmin) it is still slow...

As I wrote before - there are so many tookits (QT, GTK, even wxWidgets) which are cross platform,
actively maintained that have all the features suitable for dbms - and mostly fast...

--
Tomek

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Tomek <tomek@apostata.org> wrote:
>>> You don't care what You users say about Your software??? That's a nice statement...
>>
>> Twisting my words is a great way to make your point. Kudos.
>
> Twisting... Saying "I'm not going to lose sleep over it" means what - in case of someones concerns?

No, it means I'm not going to lose sleep if someone doesn't like
pgAdmin, as you cannot please everyone - that's a fact of life. That
doesn't mean I don't care if users provide useful feedback.

>>> I've posted here a list of what is missing/wrong in new pgAdmin - did You even commented on that?
>>
>> Posted here? The website is quite clear that bugs and feature requests
>> should be logged as tickets on our Redmine instance. There is no
>> guarantee developers will read every message here.
>
> I get the bugtracker - but my first list contains 19 cases (from one day of using) - cases that
> every other dbms has, and previous version had...

OK, so that means we have to use a different process for you? There
are very good reasons why we ask people to use the bug tracker - not
least because it allows us to properly track them.

>> Feedback along the lines of "It's crap and I hate it" is unhelpful and
>> will likely be ignored.
>
> Nobody said this - we all gave examples what is wrong with it...

Perhaps you should re-read the thread.

>>> How 4 is more stable than 3? Please explain it to us...
>>
>> Because it doesn't crash every 5 minutes? Because it doesn't go nuts
>> if it loses an open database connection?
>
> That doesn't mean more stable - that means You've fixed the bug (which everybody got used to)...

Not breaking unexpectedly is the very definition of "stable".

>>> In 1.4 - query SELECT 2/0; returns
>>> successfully...
>>
>> Oh? I haven't seen that logged. When I try it, I get the result in the
>> attached screenshot.
>
> https://ibb.co/eBbtdF

In 1.4?

>>> And please, please explain to us how 'less and slower' is better than 'more and faster'...
>>
>> The vast majority of the "more" wasn't used by anyone. Did you ever
>> create an Operator Class? Or use pgScript for example?
>
> Look at the list above...

That doesn't answer or invalidate my question at all.

>> As for the speed, yes, it's a little slower due to the architecture,
>> but we're talking fractions of a second (at least on all the machines
>> and virtual machines I've tested on). I know I still can't keep up
>> with it. The only exception I know of is the query tool with very
>> large results sets, which we've been working on and already have a WIP
>> patch that makes it ~20x *faster* than pgAdmin 3 in some large test
>> cases.
>
> I don't see it - I see query that is running 14 seconds in v4 but 3.5 seconds in v3, seconds pass
> before new query tab opens, seconds pass before browse tab opens, click properties count to 10 -
> properties appear, table properties - You can see switches flipping on columns tab, try moving any
> window - drags behind mouse, try put back accidentally detached tab, and so on...

With the exception of the query tool, which I noted above, and the
couple of seconds it takes to initialise, all of the above is so close
to instant for me that I can't begin to time it.

> In v3 3 dbs connected 4 query windows, 2 browse windows: private memory: 35 MBytes
> In v4 1 db connected 1 query window: private memory: 600 MBytes
> In v4 constant CPU usage around 10% (damn dashboard)

https://www.pgadmin.org/faq/#5

>> Oh? You have a better idea for something that we wanted to be able to
>> run over the web? Java or Flash perhaps?
>
> My objection for html is for standalone app - not webapp.
> You know that every major databases does not use web as primary dbms yes? But even if we use it as
> a server side only (like phppgadmin) it is still slow...

I'm sorry - I thought we were free to write and give away at no cost
whatever software we wanted.

Seriously, this is Open Source. Contributors work on what they want,
and clearly (based on the number of contributors we have now) more
people want to work on newer technology that can be run in multiple
different modes - and based on the download numbers, most users aren't
disagreeing with our choices. We could have just quit and gone and
done something else instead but instead, people have put in well over
20,000 hours of effort at this point to give you something for free.

I'm more than happy to help when bug reports are logged, and to make
improvements where issues can be demonstrated and reproduced. However,
if that isn't good enough for you then I'd suggest that maybe you
would prefer to use an alternative tool.

19 maja 2017 12:24 - "Dave Page" <dpage@pgadmin.org>:

> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Tomek <tomek@apostata.org> wrote:
>
>> You don't care what You users say about Your software??? That's a nice statement...
>
> Twisting my words is a great way to make your point. Kudos.
>> Twisting... Saying "I'm not going to lose sleep over it" means what - in case of someones concerns?
>
> No, it means I'm not going to lose sleep if someone doesn't like
> pgAdmin, as you cannot please everyone - that's a fact of life. That
> doesn't mean I don't care if users provide useful feedback.

Please understand - this is not about LIKING - this is about missing features and problems with the
software...

>> I've posted here a list of what is missing/wrong in new pgAdmin - did You even commented on that?
>
> Posted here? The website is quite clear that bugs and feature requests
> should be logged as tickets on our Redmine instance. There is no
> guarantee developers will read every message here.
>> I get the bugtracker - but my first list contains 19 cases (from one day of using) - cases that
>> every other dbms has, and previous version had...
>
> OK, so that means we have to use a different process for you? There
> are very good reasons why we ask people to use the bug tracker - not
> least because it allows us to properly track them.

There are also good reasons not to release aplpa as "pgAdmin 4 is a complete rewrite of pgAdmin"...
I understand the use of bugtracker - but I hoped that "complete rewrite" will be complete...

> Feedback along the lines of "It's crap and I hate it" is unhelpful and
> will likely be ignored.
>> Nobody said this - we all gave examples what is wrong with it...
>
> Perhaps you should re-read the thread.

Everyone pointed out something, yes I admit using words like horrible, but giving a reason why...

>> How 4 is more stable than 3? Please explain it to us...
>
> Because it doesn't crash every 5 minutes? Because it doesn't go nuts
> if it loses an open database connection?
>> That doesn't mean more stable - that means You've fixed the bug (which everybody got used to)...
>
> Not breaking unexpectedly is the very definition of "stable".

This debate is pointless - I can point lot more bugs in v3 but saying 'more stable' is an
overstatement...

>> In 1.4 - query SELECT 2/0; returns
>> successfully...
>
> Oh? I haven't seen that logged. When I try it, I get the result in the
> attached screenshot.
>> https://ibb.co/eBbtdF
>
> In 1.4?

Yes in 1.4.

>> And please, please explain to us how 'less and slower' is better than 'more and faster'...
>
> The vast majority of the "more" wasn't used by anyone. Did you ever
> create an Operator Class? Or use pgScript for example?
>> Look at the list above...
>
> That doesn't answer or invalidate my question at all.

Missing features does not answer Your question? So according to You nobody uses features I pointed
out?

> As for the speed, yes, it's a little slower due to the architecture,
> but we're talking fractions of a second (at least on all the machines
> and virtual machines I've tested on). I know I still can't keep up
> with it. The only exception I know of is the query tool with very
> large results sets, which we've been working on and already have a WIP
> patch that makes it ~20x *faster* than pgAdmin 3 in some large test
> cases.
>> I don't see it - I see query that is running 14 seconds in v4 but 3.5 seconds in v3, seconds pass
>> before new query tab opens, seconds pass before browse tab opens, click properties count to 10 -
>> properties appear, table properties - You can see switches flipping on columns tab, try moving any
>> window - drags behind mouse, try put back accidentally detached tab, and so on...
>
> With the exception of the query tool, which I noted above, and the
> couple of seconds it takes to initialise, all of the above is so close
> to instant for me that I can't begin to time it.

Same pc, same db, 2 dbms - result are above. Sorry but "works for me" does not works for me...

>> In v3 3 dbs connected 4 query windows, 2 browse windows: private memory: 35 MBytes
>> In v4 1 db connected 1 query window: private memory: 600 MBytes
>> In v4 constant CPU usage around 10% (damn dashboard)
>
> https://www.pgadmin.org/faq/#5
>
> Oh? You have a better idea for something that we wanted to be able to
> run over the web? Java or Flash perhaps?
>> My objection for html is for standalone app - not webapp.
>> You know that every major databases does not use web as primary dbms yes? But even if we use it as
>> a server side only (like phppgadmin) it is still slow...
>
> I'm sorry - I thought we were free to write and give away at no cost
> whatever software we wanted.

As are we free to criticize it...
I asked You several times why did You choose html and now You have pulled - "it is free so we do
what we want...". So the rest of this discussion is pointless now...

> Seriously, this is Open Source. Contributors work on what they want,
> and clearly (based on the number of contributors we have now) more
> people want to work on newer technology that can be run in multiple
> different modes - and based on the download numbers, most users aren't
> disagreeing with our choices. We could have just quit and gone and
> done something else instead but instead, people have put in well over
> 20,000 hours of effort at this point to give you something for free.

I write software for the living... I choose technology best fitted for particular case - no because
it is modern/new/popular...
As for downloads - these are probably people like me who after years of feature lacking pgAdmin3 hoped for something
better... 

> I'm more than happy to help when bug reports are logged, and to make
> improvements where issues can be demonstrated and reproduced. However,
> if that isn't good enough for you then I'd suggest that maybe you
> would prefer to use an alternative tool.

You must understand one thing - first You stop developing v3, than release feature stripped v4, than demand to report
issue/featurerequest You already know it is missing... 
Maybe this news for You but people used this software for more than 10 years - they got used to functionality - what
we'veexpected was improvement (new features) not regress...  

--
Tomek

>
> One thing I’m doing is launching the software.  pgAdmin III launches and
> is ready to go in 3 seconds.  pgAdmin 4 takes 20 seconds.
>
>
>
> The other thing I’m doing is expanding nodes in the Browser tree.  When
> I expand the Ðatabases node under my server, pgAdmin 4 takes about 3.5
> seconds to respond.  pgAdmin 3 is instantaneous.  Similarly, when I
> expand a node for a specific database, pgAdmin 4 takes 5 seconds.
> pgAdmin 3 is instantaneous.  With pgAdmin 4, I am constantly asking
> myself, “Wait, I thought I clicked that.  Did I miss it?”
>
>
>
> Also, when I expand a database node, there is a Schemas subnode.
> pgAdmin III immediately shows a “(7)” next to Schemas to tell me how
> many schemas there are.  pgAdmin 4 can’t manage to tell me how many
> schemas there are until after I have expanded Schemas, at which point I
> can count them myself.  So pgAdmin 4 is doing less than pgAdmin III and
> yet taking orders of magnitude longer.
>


+1

On 19.5.2017 14:38, Tomek wrote:
> You must understand one thing - first You stop developing v3, than release feature stripped v4, than demand to report
issue/featurerequest You already know it is missing...
 
> Maybe this news for You but people used this software for more than 10 years - they got used to functionality - what
we'veexpected was improvement (new features) not regress...
 

Cannot agree more.
Apart from discussion about chosen technology and related impacts 
(especially on user experience of desktop users), pgAdmin4 shouldn't be 
yet published as stable release. Since pgA4 remains 
feature-wise-incomplete comparing to pgA3, it should be called 'alpha' 
and therefore it shouldn't be offered as replacement of pgA3.
In case it is intended to be something else than pgA3's successor, then 
shouldn't be called pgAdmin (to avoid confusion while comparing features).

with regards

MK



-- 
Sent via pgadmin-support mailing list (pgadmin-support@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-support

On 2017-05-19 14:20, Adam Brusselback wrote:
>> I seriously may go back to PostgreSQL 9.3 so that I can use pgAdmin
> III until I can wean myself off the tool.
>  You don't have to revert your database version to use pgadmin III,
> the newest release works fine with Postgres 9.6, and there is also the
> BigSQL fork of pgadmin III which as far as I know will continue to
> support new releases.

Could anyone clarify this for me?

PostgreSQL & pgadmin are distinct projects right?

I installed pgadmin 4 on a windows machine earlier this week and, 
leaving aside the fact that I dislike it, the installation worked. Today 
I tried to find out how to install pgadmin 4 on a Linux machine and I 
could only find installation methods that seemed to install all of 
postgresql, both server & client application. Is this just my 
misunderstanding of what's available?

It means you don't have to switch into pgAdmin4 just because you are 
using recent version of database.
pgAdmin3 v1.22.2 supports pg9.6 (at least it doesn't throw exceptions 
for common tasks)
MK

On 19.5.2017 15:45, richard@xentu.com wrote:
> On 2017-05-19 14:20, Adam Brusselback wrote:
>>> I seriously may go back to PostgreSQL 9.3 so that I can use pgAdmin
>> III until I can wean myself off the tool.
>>  You don't have to revert your database version to use pgadmin III,
>> the newest release works fine with Postgres 9.6, and there is also the
>> BigSQL fork of pgadmin III which as far as I know will continue to
>> support new releases.
>
> Could anyone clarify this for me?
>
> PostgreSQL & pgadmin are distinct projects right?
>
> I installed pgadmin 4 on a windows machine earlier this week and, 
> leaving aside the fact that I dislike it, the installation worked. 
> Today I tried to find out how to install pgadmin 4 on a Linux machine 
> and I could only find installation methods that seemed to install all 
> of postgresql, both server & client application. Is this just my 
> misunderstanding of what's available?
>
>
>
>


-- 
Sent via pgadmin-support mailing list (pgadmin-support@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-support

On 2017-05-19 15:13, Michal Kozusznik wrote:
> It means you don't have to switch into pgAdmin4 just because you are
> using recent version of database.
> pgAdmin3 v1.22.2 supports pg9.6 (at least it doesn't throw exceptions
> for common tasks)
> MK
> 
> On 19.5.2017 15:45, richard@xentu.com wrote:
>> On 2017-05-19 14:20, Adam Brusselback wrote:
>>>> I seriously may go back to PostgreSQL 9.3 so that I can use pgAdmin
>>> III until I can wean myself off the tool.
>>>  You don't have to revert your database version to use pgadmin III,
>>> the newest release works fine with Postgres 9.6, and there is also 
>>> the
>>> BigSQL fork of pgadmin III which as far as I know will continue to
>>> support new releases.
>> 
>> Could anyone clarify this for me?
>> 
>> PostgreSQL & pgadmin are distinct projects right?
>> 
>> I installed pgadmin 4 on a windows machine earlier this week and, 
>> leaving aside the fact that I dislike it, the installation worked. 
>> Today I tried to find out how to install pgadmin 4 on a Linux machine 
>> and I could only find installation methods that seemed to install all 
>> of postgresql, both server & client application. Is this just my 
>> misunderstanding of what's available?
>> 
>> 

So are the two independent?

Can one install pgadmin4 on without installing the server? If so, could 
you advise on how to do that on Ubuntu?

And, more importantly, can the latest server install be done without 
installing pgadmin4?

On 19.5.2017 16:24, richard@xentu.com wrote:
> On 2017-05-19 15:13, Michal Kozusznik wrote:
>> It means you don't have to switch into pgAdmin4 just because you are
>> using recent version of database.
>> pgAdmin3 v1.22.2 supports pg9.6 (at least it doesn't throw exceptions
>> for common tasks)
>> MK
>>
>> On 19.5.2017 15:45, richard@xentu.com wrote:
>>> On 2017-05-19 14:20, Adam Brusselback wrote:
>>>>> I seriously may go back to PostgreSQL 9.3 so that I can use pgAdmin
>>>> III until I can wean myself off the tool.
>>>>  You don't have to revert your database version to use pgadmin III,
>>>> the newest release works fine with Postgres 9.6, and there is also the
>>>> BigSQL fork of pgadmin III which as far as I know will continue to
>>>> support new releases.
>>>
>>> Could anyone clarify this for me?
>>>
>>> PostgreSQL & pgadmin are distinct projects right?
>>>
>>> I installed pgadmin 4 on a windows machine earlier this week and, 
>>> leaving aside the fact that I dislike it, the installation worked. 
>>> Today I tried to find out how to install pgadmin 4 on a Linux 
>>> machine and I could only find installation methods that seemed to 
>>> install all of postgresql, both server & client application. Is this 
>>> just my misunderstanding of what's available?
>>>
>>>
>
> So are the two independent?

Yes, to some extent. Means, application is standalone and is even 
distributed separately from server. But subsequent versions might depend 
on some specific server features. For example pgAdmin3 1.20 throws some 
errors while connecting do pg9.6 while 1.22 works fine.

>
> Can one install pgadmin4 on without installing the server? If so, 
> could you advise on how to do that on Ubuntu?
> And, more importantly, can the latest server install be done without 
> installing pgadmin4?

Cannot help with pgA4. A - I cannot use that, B - I'm on desktop, really 
doesn't care what is installed on server side, C - I'm Windows user.
But you should be able to install pgA3 next to pgA4. Or the existence of 
pgA4 is the case?

MK



-- 
Sent via pgadmin-support mailing list (pgadmin-support@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-support

Ditto to MK's comment.

Developers can somewhat tolerate this "alpha" state in pgadmin4.  I would never  push/recommend  pgadmin4  to our
customers.
Someone indicated pg4  get 20 compliments for every negative,  I would offer there's 19 that simply decided it was not
ready,and did not give your any feedback.
 
They just hope it continues to evolve,  and pgadminIII continues to be available.

It looks promising,  good luck.

Dave

No matter how hard you push the envelope, Ulitmately it's just stationary.
:+)

-----Original Message-----
From: pgadmin-support-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgadmin-support-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Michal Kozusznik
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 9:30 AM
To: pgadmin-support@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [pgadmin-support] making me love pgAdmin III

On 19.5.2017 14:38, Tomek wrote:
> You must understand one thing - first You stop developing v3, than release feature stripped v4, than demand to report
issue/featurerequest You already know it is missing...
 
> Maybe this news for You but people used this software for more than 10 years - they got used to functionality - what
we'veexpected was improvement (new features) not regress...
 

Cannot agree more.
Apart from discussion about chosen technology and related impacts (especially on user experience of desktop users),
pgAdmin4shouldn't be yet published as stable release. Since pgA4 remains feature-wise-incomplete comparing to pgA3, it
shouldbe called 'alpha' 
 
and therefore it shouldn't be offered as replacement of pgA3.
In case it is intended to be something else than pgA3's successor, then shouldn't be called pgAdmin (to avoid confusion
whilecomparing features).
 

with regards

MK

On 2017-05-19 6:30 AM, Michal Kozusznik wrote:
> On 19.5.2017 14:38, Tomek wrote:
>> You must understand one thing - first You stop developing v3, than release
>> feature stripped v4, than demand to report issue/feature request You already
>> know it is missing...
>> Maybe this news for You but people used this software for more than 10 years -
>> they got used to functionality - what we've expected was improvement (new
>> features) not regress...
>
> Cannot agree more.
> Apart from discussion about chosen technology and related impacts (especially on
> user experience of desktop users), pgAdmin4 shouldn't be yet published as stable
> release. Since pgA4 remains feature-wise-incomplete comparing to pgA3, it should
> be called 'alpha' and therefore it shouldn't be offered as replacement of pgA3.
> In case it is intended to be something else than pgA3's successor, then
> shouldn't be called pgAdmin (to avoid confusion while comparing features).

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what alpha vs stable means.

It is NOT about the amount or kinds of features.  Rather it is about whether the 
features that do exist have been adequately tested and certified by the 
developers that they are reasonably free of bugs.

If the software never crashes and the features it does have work as they are 
supposed to, and it has been tested widely enough to be confident in this fact, 
then the software is stable.

Lacking features that a prior version has does NOT make something alpha.

At worst it means the new version is incompatible with the prior version, which 
is a completely separate issue save where the incompatibility is due to a bug 
rather than an intentional omission.

-- Darren Duncan

On 2017-05-19 16:07, Michael Shapiro wrote:
> FWIW -- the final release of PgAdmin 3 fixed an ssl issue which, at
> least for me, fixed the disconnects from the server.

Not me. I still can't use it for more than a few minutes at a time, or
with a query that returns more than a few dozen rows, if SSH is
involved. Stuck with the command-line until pgAdmin 4 becomes useful or
I find something else.


-- Stephen

Am 18.05.2017 um 22:43 schrieb Dave Page:

> Not to me, because the number of people I've had complimenting pgAdmin 4
> is probably 20x the number who have said they don't like it. Which is a
> good sign - normally people who don't like something are far more likely
> to say something.

People who don't like pgAdmin 4 just don't bother writing unless they
find a bug by accident if they bother to test the new version at all.
IMO web interfaces are ALWAYS inferior to a local client beginning with
the response time ...
I don't really like pgAdmin III but it's still much better than pgAdmin 4.

On 2017-05-19 14:45, richard@xentu.com wrote:
> On 2017-05-19 14:20, Adam Brusselback wrote:
>>> I seriously may go back to PostgreSQL 9.3 so that I can use pgAdmin
>> III until I can wean myself off the tool.
>>  You don't have to revert your database version to use pgadmin III,
>> the newest release works fine with Postgres 9.6, and there is also the
>> BigSQL fork of pgadmin III which as far as I know will continue to
>> support new releases.
> 
> Could anyone clarify this for me?
> 
> PostgreSQL & pgadmin are distinct projects right?
> 
> I installed pgadmin 4 on a windows machine earlier this week and,
> leaving aside the fact that I dislike it, the installation worked.
> Today I tried to find out how to install pgadmin 4 on a Linux machine
> and I could only find installation methods that seemed to install all
> of postgresql, both server & client application. Is this just my
> misunderstanding of what's available?

I don't think I expressed myself accurately enough in my above post.

When I've installed postgresql previously, I think pgadmin3 was 
installed at the same time. Certainly this was the case for a recent 
install I did on Windows. As far as I know, until now, postgresql hasn't 
needed python on the server. If I download the windows postgresql 
installer, and pgadmin4 is by default included, then it means python 
must also be getting installed.

That's what I was concerned about when previously asking if the two 
projects were distinct.

Is there an installer that doesn't include pgadmin4 & python?

Somebody please correct me, if in fact, even the server component 
requires python. Seems like bloat otherwise.

On 20/05/17 11:17, richard@xentu.com wrote:
> On 2017-05-19 14:45, richard@xentu.com wrote:
>> On 2017-05-19 14:20, Adam Brusselback wrote:
>>>> I seriously may go back to PostgreSQL 9.3 so that I can use pgAdmin
>>> III until I can wean myself off the tool.
>>>  You don't have to revert your database version to use pgadmin III,
>>> the newest release works fine with Postgres 9.6, and there is also the
>>> BigSQL fork of pgadmin III which as far as I know will continue to
>>> support new releases.
>>
>> Could anyone clarify this for me?
>>
>> PostgreSQL & pgadmin are distinct projects right?
>>
>> I installed pgadmin 4 on a windows machine earlier this week and,
>> leaving aside the fact that I dislike it, the installation worked.
>> Today I tried to find out how to install pgadmin 4 on a Linux machine
>> and I could only find installation methods that seemed to install all
>> of postgresql, both server & client application. Is this just my
>> misunderstanding of what's available?
> 
> I don't think I expressed myself accurately enough in my above post.
> 
> When I've installed postgresql previously, I think pgadmin3 was 
> installed at the same time. Certainly this was the case for a recent 
> install I did on Windows. As far as I know, until now, postgresql hasn't 
> needed python on the server. If I download the windows postgresql 
> installer, and pgadmin4 is by default included, then it means python 
> must also be getting installed.
> 
> That's what I was concerned about when previously asking if the two 
> projects were distinct.

Yes, the two projects are distinct. However, third-party PostgreSQL 
installers may bundle them - for example, the Windows one from 
EnterpriseDB installs pgAdmin too (or at least it used to - I haven't 
used Windows since before pgAdmin 4 was released, so my information may 
be out of date).

> Somebody please correct me, if in fact, even the server component 
> requires python. Seems like bloat otherwise.

No, the server is written in C so it doesn't require Python (unless of 
course you're using PL/Python).

Ray.

-- 
Raymond O'Donnell :: Galway :: Ireland
rod@iol.ie

On 2017-05-20 14:23, Raymond O'Donnell wrote:
> On 20/05/17 11:17, richard@xentu.com wrote:
>> On 2017-05-19 14:45, richard@xentu.com wrote:
>>> On 2017-05-19 14:20, Adam Brusselback wrote:
>>>>> I seriously may go back to PostgreSQL 9.3 so that I can use pgAdmin
>>>> III until I can wean myself off the tool.
>>>>  You don't have to revert your database version to use pgadmin III,
>>>> the newest release works fine with Postgres 9.6, and there is also 
>>>> the
>>>> BigSQL fork of pgadmin III which as far as I know will continue to
>>>> support new releases.
>>> 
>>> Could anyone clarify this for me?
>>> 
>>> PostgreSQL & pgadmin are distinct projects right?
>>> 
>>> I installed pgadmin 4 on a windows machine earlier this week and,
>>> leaving aside the fact that I dislike it, the installation worked.
>>> Today I tried to find out how to install pgadmin 4 on a Linux machine
>>> and I could only find installation methods that seemed to install all
>>> of postgresql, both server & client application. Is this just my
>>> misunderstanding of what's available?
>> 
>> I don't think I expressed myself accurately enough in my above post.
>> 
>> When I've installed postgresql previously, I think pgadmin3 was 
>> installed at the same time. Certainly this was the case for a recent 
>> install I did on Windows. As far as I know, until now, postgresql 
>> hasn't needed python on the server. If I download the windows 
>> postgresql installer, and pgadmin4 is by default included, then it 
>> means python must also be getting installed.
>> 
>> That's what I was concerned about when previously asking if the two 
>> projects were distinct.
> 
> Yes, the two projects are distinct. However, third-party PostgreSQL
> installers may bundle them - for example, the Windows one from
> EnterpriseDB installs pgAdmin too (or at least it used to - I haven't
> used Windows since before pgAdmin 4 was released, so my information
> may be out of date).
> 
>> Somebody please correct me, if in fact, even the server component 
>> requires python. Seems like bloat otherwise.
> 
> No, the server is written in C so it doesn't require Python (unless of
> course you're using PL/Python).
> 
> Ray.
> 
> --
> Raymond O'Donnell :: Galway :: Ireland
> rod@iol.ie

Thanks for the clarification Ray, that's the answer I was hoping for.

So, it really doesn't matter if the pgadmin developers go off in some 
fresh direction. I like to work with multiple windows all open at the 
same time, and like the snappy feel of a native application. I usually 
use several tools & editors at once, of which talking to a database in 
sql is the simplest. I therefore want a database tool taking up the 
least possible screen space.

If pgadmin is no longer that tool, plenty of others are available.

On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 04:18:05AM -0400, Stephen Cook wrote:
> On 2017-05-19 16:07, Michael Shapiro wrote:
> > FWIW -- the final release of PgAdmin 3 fixed an ssl issue which, at
> > least for me, fixed the disconnects from the server.
> 
> Not me. I still can't use it for more than a few minutes at a time, or
> with a query that returns more than a few dozen rows, if SSH is
> involved. Stuck with the command-line until pgAdmin 4 becomes useful or
> I find something else.

I also gave up on using pgadmin4.

PgadminIII (1.22.2-1) on Debian is somewhat unstable but to me more
usable than pgadmin4. We use it with PostgreSQL 9.6 and most of use it
over a ssh-tunnel.

Maybe pgadmin4 will one day be fast and efficient, but I doubt it
because of the platform and architecture the developers have chosen to
use.

And maybe some people like the interface.  That may be a matter of
personal taste.

I have also tested some alternatives to pgadmin3/4 and some of them are
usable.

Regards
Johann
-- 
Johann Spies                            Telefoon: 021-808 4699
Databestuurder /  Data manager        Faks: 021-883 3691

Sentrum vir Navorsing oor Evaluasie, Wetenskap en Tegnologie
Centre for Research on Evaluation, Science and Technology 
Universiteit Stellenbosch.

The integrity and confidentiality of this email is governed by these terms / Hierdie terme bepaal die integriteit en
vertroulikheidvan hierdie epos. http://www.sun.ac.za/emaildisclaimer
 

Yeah, PGadmin III was much better...so much easier to use, yeah it may be a
little familiarity but this 
4 (3.2) just does not seem to have any functionality it does open faster
than 1.4 but I will stick to III
I agree, it is not meant as a slam but just trying to understand why you
would stop improving something that works to offer something that is
wortless.



--
Sent from: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-pgadmin-support-f2191615.html