Re: Registry
От | Andreas Pflug |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Registry |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4374CBDE.4060303@pse-consulting.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Registry ("Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>) |
Список | pgadmin-hackers |
Dave Page wrote: > >> >> 1.5 *does* delete the values, but wx will read a non-existent value >> as empty and recreate it. > > > Because the count value still read 12 or whatever I guess. Yup. > Do we still need the count in the new scheme? Can't we just iterate > through all the subkeys? We'd have to delete entries if servers are removed from the tree. I can remember incidents where count was corrupted (for whatever reason) and no servers where displayed, but the registry was still there so it was sufficient to increase the count. > >> Any suggestions? We could copy them over, if newer don't exist, and >> leave the old ones. But this would leave quite some (pre-1.5) >> garbage. > > > I'm not convinced it was actually worth the change - it's not like it > was something that the user needed to hack normally, or would cause > performance issues. If you add a schema restriction you'll understand why I did this. Alternatively, we could try to convince Tom to extend pg_database and pg_schema :-) Regards, Andreas
В списке pgadmin-hackers по дате отправления: