Обсуждение: pgaccess - where to store the own data
Hello everybody, There is an open question we need broad opinion on. Currently pgaccess stores its own data in the database it works with. Some people do not like that. To store it elsewhere invokes a number of issues such as: - where is this somewhere - converting form all versions to the new - etc. What do people think about this. Is it so bad that the own data is stored in the database pgaccess works with? Iavor -- www.pgaccess.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: Iavor Raytchev [mailto:iavor.raytchev@verysmall.org] > Sent: 30 August 2002 16:44 > To: pgsql-hackers; pgsql-interfaces > Subject: [HACKERS] pgaccess - where to store the own data > > > Hello everybody, > > There is an open question we need broad opinion on. > > Currently pgaccess stores its own data in the database it > works with. Some people do not like that. To store it > elsewhere invokes a number of issues such as: > > - where is this somewhere > - converting form all versions to the new > - etc. > > What do people think about this. Is it so bad that the own > data is stored in the database pgaccess works with? I had the same trouble with pgAdmin, especially with pgAdmin I which had a whole host of objects server-side. I also found that people didn't like it, but where else do you store the data? pgAdmin II no longer uses such tables, but to get over the problem as best I could, I added a cleanup option to pgAdmin I that removed all server side objects in one go. Regards, Dave.
Iavor Raytchev wrote: > Hello everybody, > > There is an open question we need broad opinion on. > > Currently pgaccess stores its own data in the database it works with. > Some people do not like that. To store it elsewhere invokes a number of > issues such as: > > - where is this somewhere > - converting form all versions to the new > - etc. > > What do people think about this. Is it so bad that the own data is > stored in the database pgaccess works with? > I don't particularly like it. Oracle deals with this by having a database unto itself as a management repository (Oracle Enterprise Manager, OEM, I believe). You register the database you want to manage with the repository, and the metadata is kept there instead of in each managed database. Joe
> > What do people think about this. Is it so bad that the own > > data is stored in the database pgaccess works with? > > pgAdmin II no longer uses such tables, but to get over the problem as > best I could, I added a cleanup option to pgAdmin I that removed all > server side objects in one go. What does pgAdmin II do instead? Or, how did you solve the problem? Also, just to put my two cents in, I and others I have worked with don't like admin tools mucking up the databases we're working on. So, I think it's a good idea to find some solution. One thought is to use a completely separate database, but also allow it to be stored in the current database if the user wants it too. This also solves the case of a user that can't create a new database for his admin tool (permissions etc...). Also, it might be cleaner now that we have schemea support to create one pgadmin, or pgaccess schemea in the database, that handled all the others.
Matthew T. OConnor wrote: > One thought is to use a completely separate database, but also allow it > to be stored in the current database if the user wants it too. This > also solves the case of a user that can't create a new database for his > admin tool (permissions etc...). Also, it might be cleaner now that we > have schemea support to create one pgadmin, or pgaccess schemea in the > database, that handled all the others. > As someone else mentioned (I think), even using a separate schema is not always an acceptable option. If you are using a "packaged" application (whether commercial or open source), you usually don't want *any* changes to the vendor provided database. Particularly with commercial software, that can mean loss of, or problems with, technical support, or problems when upgrading. Joe
> As someone else mentioned (I think), even using a separate schema is not > always an acceptable option. If you are using a "packaged" application > (whether commercial or open source), you usually don't want *any* > changes to the vendor provided database. Particularly with commercial > software, that can mean loss of, or problems with, technical support, or > problems when upgrading. Agreed, but if the information is to be stored using the database server at all, then I think this option should be left in since some users probably don't mind the clutter, and will not be allowed to create a new database or schemea.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew T. OConnor [mailto:matthew@zeut.net] > Sent: 30 August 2002 18:59 > To: Dave Page > Cc: Iavor Raytchev; pgsql-hackers; pgsql-interfaces > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pgaccess - where to store the own data > > > > > What do people think about this. Is it so bad that the own > > > data is stored in the database pgaccess works with? > > > > pgAdmin II no longer uses such tables, but to get over the > problem as > > best I could, I added a cleanup option to pgAdmin I that > removed all > > server side objects in one go. > > What does pgAdmin II do instead? Or, how did you solve the problem? pgAdmin II 1.2.0 optionally used one table for it's revision control feature. This has been removed in the latest code 'cos I was never totally happy with it, and no-one admitted to using it when I quizzed the lists. The other objects (views, functions and tables) have been removed either because pgAdmin II is far cleverer in the way it caches things than pgAdmin I was and can get away with 2 queries instead of one or a more complex one if required, or, because features such as monitoring of sequence values and tables sizes were dropped in the great rewrite. It's also worth noting, that pgAdmin and pgAccess have different aims. Whilst pgAccess aims to provide application bulding and reporting facilities (like Access) which naturally require a centralised data store, pgAdmin is intended as a pure Admin tool aiming to fully support all PostgreSQL object types. Regards, Dave.
> > What do people think about this. Is it so bad that the own data is > > stored in the database pgaccess works with? > > > > I don't particularly like it. Oracle deals with this by having a > database unto itself as a management repository (Oracle Enterprise > Manager, OEM, I believe). You register the database you want to manage > with the repository, and the metadata is kept there instead of in each > managed database. These days you could create a schema in the database you're managing as well... Chris
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 02:43:38PM -0400, Matthew T. OConnor wrote: > > As someone else mentioned (I think), even using a separate schema is not > > always an acceptable option. If you are using a "packaged" application > > (whether commercial or open source), you usually don't want *any* > > changes to the vendor provided database. Particularly with commercial > > software, that can mean loss of, or problems with, technical support, or > > problems when upgrading. > > Agreed, but if the information is to be stored using the database server at > all, then I think this option should be left in since some users probably > don't mind the clutter, and will not be allowed to create a new database or > schemea. I'm a bit late on this discussion, but I, for one, have liked having some of the pgaccess info stored with the database. That way, no matter what machine I connect to the DB from, I get the same set of functions, queries, and schema-documents. BTW, has the 'schema' tab been renamed yet? With actual schema in 7.3, that'll get confusing. Ross
Ross wrote: > I'm a bit late on this discussion, but I, for one, have liked > having > some of the pgaccess info stored with the database. That way, > no matter > what machine I connect to the DB from, I get the same set of > functions, > queries, and schema-documents. Very much true. A wiki page has been started on that topic - feel free to contribute to the methods and their pros and cons, as well to the proposed final approach. http://www.pgaccess.org/index.php?page=WhereToStoreThePgAccessOwnData > BTW, has the 'schema' tab been renamed yet? With actual schema > in 7.3, > that'll get confusing. Not renamed yet.