Обсуждение: Registry
going to -hackers >>>> >>>>The registry format changed a day ago; the old was getting >>>>too crowded. >>>>1.5 will convert from older versions. >>> >>> >>>Oh, is that what deleted all my servers? Took me ages to >> >>put them back >> >>>again :-( >> >>Um yes, old registry entries are deleted after creation in the new >>location to avoid that new entries are overwritten by old ones. > > > Whatever killed mine off didn't delete them, it just set all the > settings to empty strings so I had lots of servers like: (:0) as Miha > did :-( 1.5 *does* delete the values, but wx will read a non-existent value as empty and recreate it. > > What's also odd, is that looking in the registry, I still seem to be > using the old format having re-added my servers. Obviously I haven't > picked up the change yet, which makes me wonder what blew all the > entries away. > > /D > > PS. Just rebuilt - settings upgraded fine. Now how do I test fixes in > 1.4.x without getting in a mess I wonder... 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. Regards, Andreas
> -----Original Message----- > From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de] > Sent: 11 November 2005 16:29 > To: Dave Page > Cc: Miha Radej; pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Registry > > > Whatever killed mine off didn't delete them, it just set all the > > settings to empty strings so I had lots of servers like: > (:0) as Miha > > did :-( > > 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. Do we still need the count in the new scheme? Can't we just iterate through all the subkeys? > > 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. Regards, Dave.
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
> -----Original Message----- > From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de] > Sent: 11 November 2005 16:51 > To: Dave Page > Cc: Miha Radej; pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: Registry > > > 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. Ahh, yes, I see! > Alternatively, we could try to convince Tom to extend pg_database and > pg_schema :-) Err, yuh. You go ahead... :-) /D
Dave Page wrote: > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de] >>Sent: 11 November 2005 16:51 >>To: Dave Page >>Cc: Miha Radej; pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org >>Subject: Re: Registry >> >> >>>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. > > > Ahh, yes, I see! > > >>Alternatively, we could try to convince Tom to extend pg_database and >>pg_schema :-) > > > Err, yuh. You go ahead... No, *you* wear the project leader hat, your turn :-> Ok, thou it was undoubltly a really brilliant idea of mine to delete pre-1.5 entries, it might be a good idea to keep them for now, just to please you :-) Regards, Andreas > > :-) > > /D