[pgadmin-hackers] pgAdmin III commit: Fix freeze of UI when querytool has an error on a q

[Guillaume Lelarge]

Fix freeze of UI when querytool has an error on a query

We call too many times the GetCharAt() and the GetText().Length() methods.
This fix calls GetCharAt() once per loop (instead of five times per loop), and
GetText().Length() once only (instead of once per loop). My testing shows no
freeze at all with a 4000 lines of SQL code.

Report per Evan Martin.

Branch
--
master

Details
---
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=pgadmin3.git;a=commitdiff;h=525e7f51434bd52716c0a4fb655e3038a21ef457

Modified Files
--
pgadmin/frm/frmQuery.cpp |   13 +++--
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)


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

[pgadmin-hackers] pgAdmin III commit: Fix freeze of UI when querytool has an error on a q

[Guillaume Lelarge]

Fix freeze of UI when querytool has an error on a query

We call too many times the GetCharAt() and the GetText().Length() methods.
This fix calls GetCharAt() once per loop (instead of five times per loop), and
GetText().Length() once only (instead of once per loop). My testing shows no
freeze at all with a 4000 lines of SQL code.

Report per Evan Martin.

Branch
--
REL-1_16_0_PATCHES

Details
---
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=pgadmin3.git;a=commitdiff;h=05803e4b89913c7634ff62ff6b1122fb84102eaf

Modified Files
--
pgadmin/frm/frmQuery.cpp |   13 +++--
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)


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

[pgadmin-hackers] [pgAdmin III] #369: Edit data and tables with a unique key

[pgAdmin Trac]

#369: Edit data and tables with a unique key
--+-
 Reporter:  gleu  |   Owner:  dpage
 Type:  feature   |  Status:  new  
 Priority:  minor |   Milestone:   
Component:  pgadmin   | Version:  trunk
 Keywords:  editgrid  |Platform:  all  
--+-
 I have a feature request for the 'Edit data' window that is available for
 each table in pgAdmin.

 As the OID column is not guaranteed to contain unique OIDs it would be
 nice to have additional/other fallback options ( via check box in
 pgAdmin's general options? ) to identify rows for editing in tables
 without primary keys.
 I'd suggest serials ( serial/serial4 and bigserial/serial8 ) or unique
 columns/constraints.
 Another drawback of OID columns is that you can't add them afterwards.

-- 
Ticket URL: 
pgAdmin III 
pgAdmin III

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

[pgadmin-hackers] [pgAdmin III] #370: pgScript error when relation name contains ")" symbol

[pgAdmin Trac]

#370: pgScript error when relation name contains ")" symbol
--+-
 Reporter:  Vjacheslav A  |   Owner:  dpage
 Type:  bug   |  Status:  new  
 Priority:  minor |   Milestone:   
Component:  pgadmin   | Version:  trunk
 Keywords:  pgscript  |Platform:  all  
--+-
 I have pgScript error when relation name contains ")" symbol,
 try this example (just execute by F6 - pgScript):

 CREATE TABLE "table1)d"
 (
   code character varying(10)
 )
 WITH (
   OIDS=FALSE
 );

 (its executed normally by F5).
 Windows XP rus, PGAdmin 1.14.3, PostgreSQL 9.1.4.

-- 
Ticket URL: 
pgAdmin III 
pgAdmin III

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

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] More information about the selected objects

[Guillaume Lelarge]

On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 21:47 -0300, Vinicius Santos wrote:
> > So, this information would solve the problem. What do you think?
> >
> 
> Any comment? Can I develop the patch?

You can certainly work on a patch. Shouldn't be hard to code.

I see some value on it, but I don't like the arrow.


-- 
Guillaume
http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
http://www.dalibo.com


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

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] SSH Tunneling implementation

[Guillaume Lelarge]

On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 09:32 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Akshay Joshi
>  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Magnus Hagander 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Akshay Joshi
> >>  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Dave Page  wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Akshay Joshi
> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> > Hi All
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I have tried a lot to figure out libssh2 is compiled with which
> >> >> > crypto
> >> >> > library, but unable to find it. Can someone guide/help me or do we
> >> >> > continue
> >> >> > with the public key option on UI?
> >> >>
> >> >> The libssh2 guys couldn't tell you how?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I'll post this on mailing list, but I have found one solution to the
> >> > problem is checking the function "libssh2_md5" using AC_CHECK_LIB as
> >> > below
> >> >AC_CHECK_LIB(ssh2, libssh2_md5, [IS_LIBSSH2_OPENSSL_CRYPTO=yes],
> >> > [IS_LIBSSH2_OPENSSL_CRYPTO=no])
> >> >
> >> >I have analyze libssh2 source code and found "libssh2_md5" is
> >> > implemented
> >> > only for openssl version not for the gcrypt. I have tested it with both
> >> >the version of libssh2.so.
> >> >
> >> >Thoughts? Comments?
> >>
> >> Is there a way to test the actual function that we want to call
> >> instead? Will it fail right away, or does it actually require there to
> >> be a server somewhere that we can connect to? (If it requires a server
> >> we can't use that one in configure, but if it will fail right away,
> >> that seems like a better way to test it.
> >
> >
> >To check the actual function we requires a valid server. Yesterday I have
> > posted the problem to the libssh2 mailing list, but still didn't get
> > response.Meanwhile
> >I have fixed the review comments given by Dave. Attached is the complete
> > patch with
> >AC_CHECK_LIB(ssh2, libssh2_md5 [IS_LIBSSH2_OPENSSL_CRYPTO=yes],
> > [IS_LIBSSH2_OPENSSL_CRYPTO=no]) and it works with both version of
> >libssh2.
> >
> >Can we include libssh2 source code with pgAdmin3 to solve the problem?
> > Thoughts??Comments?
> 
> I discussed that with Ashesh on Skype yesterday - I thought he was
> going to post to the list. Magnus suggested that option, and I'm
> beginning to think it's the way forward. The licence is compatible
> from what I can see, so that shouldn't be a problem. Then, we'd just
> modify the configure script to add a dependency on OpenSSL instead.
> 
> If we do that though, we'd need to make it work if OpenSSL isn't
> available on the build platform. I'd suggest that if configure isn't
> given a valid OpenSSL installation (or can't find one), then we just
> disable all the tunnelling options - just surround the appropriate
> code in #ifdef OPENSSL or something and hide the tab on dlgServer.
> 
> Anyone have any thoughts or objections to doing it that way?
> 

My only objection would be that we'll add yet another code in the
repository. I mean, we already have ogl, and gcc complains each time it
compiles it. So we already havd ogl that we added but don't maintain. If
we add also libssh2, just to be clear, I don't want to maintain it.
Someone else will have to do this (just like ogl).


-- 
Guillaume
http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
http://www.dalibo.com


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

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] More information about the selected objects

[Vinicius Santos]

Forwarding, sorry.

2012/7/14 Vinicius Santos 

> I see some value on it, but I don't like the arrow.
>>
>
> Any suggestions?
> I could put the point rather than the arrow or other something. What do
> you think?
>

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] More information about the selected objects

[Guillaume Lelarge]

On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 10:59 -0300, Vinicius Santos wrote:
> Forwarding, sorry.
> 
> 2012/7/14 Vinicius Santos 
> I see some value on it, but I don't like the arrow.
> 
> 
> Any suggestions?
> I could put the point rather than the arrow or other
> something. What do you think?
> 

Not sure I like the point either. We don't have that notation on
PostgreSQL. I think I would prefer something like "Retrieving details on
table schema.table" and not say the database. Because if you add the
database, someone will probably want also the server. It may not be
usefull to you, but it'll come at some point. And that's quite a lot of
informations.

Probably we could add some status boxes in the status bar. For exemple,
a box with a "user@database (server)" (with a lock icon if you use SSL
for example. Just a thought.


-- 
Guillaume
http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
http://www.dalibo.com


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

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] More information about the selected objects

[Vinicius Santos]

> Not sure I like the point either. We don't have that notation on
> PostgreSQL. I think I would prefer something like "Retrieving details on
> table schema.table" and not say the database. Because if you add the
> database, someone will probably want also the server. It may not be
> usefull to you, but it'll come at some point. And that's quite a lot of
> informations.
>

I agree.


> Probably we could add some status boxes in the status bar. For exemple,
> a box with a "user@database (server)" (with a lock icon if you use SSL
> for example. Just a thought.
>
>
I liked the idea!

We could add status boxes in front of the information "Retrieving details
...".

For example, suppose that is the status bar:

With 3 status boxes:

|| "Retrieving details on schema.table" || user@database || server ||

or with 2 status boxes:

|| "Retrieving details on schema.table" || user@database ( server ) ||

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] More information about the selected objects

[Guillaume Lelarge]

On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 11:28 -0300, Vinicius Santos wrote:
> 
> Not sure I like the point either. We don't have that notation
> on
> PostgreSQL. I think I would prefer something like "Retrieving
> details on
> table schema.table" and not say the database. Because if you
> add the
> database, someone will probably want also the server. It may
> not be
> usefull to you, but it'll come at some point. And that's quite
> a lot of
> informations.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Probably we could add some status boxes in the status bar. For
> exemple,
> a box with a "user@database (server)" (with a lock icon if you
> use SSL
> for example. Just a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> I liked the idea!
> 
> We could add status boxes in front of the information "Retrieving
> details ...". 
> 
> For example, suppose that is the status bar:
> 
> With 3 status boxes:
> 
> || "Retrieving details on schema.table" || user@database || server ||
> 
> or with 2 status boxes:
> 
> || "Retrieving details on schema.table" || user@database ( server )
> || 
> 
> 

I think I like the second one better, but this is just my opinion.


-- 
Guillaume
http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
http://www.dalibo.com


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

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] More information about the selected objects

[Vinicius Santos]

>
> I think I like the second one better, but this is just my opinion.
>

Well, I'll start working on the second, then.

If new opinions, we changed.

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] More information about the selected objects

[Dave Page]

On Saturday, July 14, 2012, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:

> On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 11:28 -0300, Vinicius Santos wrote:
> >
> > Not sure I like the point either. We don't have that notation
> > on
> > PostgreSQL. I think I would prefer something like "Retrieving
> > details on
> > table schema.table" and not say the database. Because if you
> > add the
> > database, someone will probably want also the server. It may
> > not be
> > usefull to you, but it'll come at some point. And that's quite
> > a lot of
> > informations.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> >
> >
> > Probably we could add some status boxes in the status bar. For
> > exemple,
> > a box with a "user@database (server)" (with a lock icon if you
> > use SSL
> > for example. Just a thought.
> >
> >
> >
> > I liked the idea!
> >
> > We could add status boxes in front of the information "Retrieving
> > details ...".
> >
> > For example, suppose that is the status bar:
> >
> > With 3 status boxes:
> >
> > || "Retrieving details on schema.table" || user@database || server ||
> >
> > or with 2 status boxes:
> >
> > || "Retrieving details on schema.table" || user@database ( server )
> > ||
> >
> >
>
> I think I like the second one better, but this is just my opinion.
>

Aside from it being a needless amount of information to clutter the display
with, I can pretty much guarantee you won't be able to figure out a clean
way of sizing the panels to accomodate all that data without truncating one
or more of them for some selected objects.

I suspect I will end up objecting strongly to any patch that tries do do
what's being discussed.


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

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

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] More information about the selected objects

[Guillaume Lelarge]

On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 18:57 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, July 14, 2012, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 11:28 -0300, Vinicius Santos wrote:
> >
> > Not sure I like the point either. We don't have that
> notation
> > on
> > PostgreSQL. I think I would prefer something like
> "Retrieving
> > details on
> > table schema.table" and not say the database.
> Because if you
> > add the
> > database, someone will probably want also the
> server. It may
> > not be
> > usefull to you, but it'll come at some point. And
> that's quite
> > a lot of
> > informations.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> >
> >
> > Probably we could add some status boxes in the
> status bar. For
> > exemple,
> > a box with a "user@database (server)" (with a lock
> icon if you
> > use SSL
> > for example. Just a thought.
> >
> >
> >
> > I liked the idea!
> >
> > We could add status boxes in front of the information
> "Retrieving
> > details ...".
> >
> > For example, suppose that is the status bar:
> >
> > With 3 status boxes:
> >
> > || "Retrieving details on schema.table" || user@database ||
> server ||
> >
> > or with 2 status boxes:
> >
> > || "Retrieving details on schema.table" || user@database
> ( server )
> > ||
> >
> >
> 
> I think I like the second one better, but this is just my
> opinion.
> 
> 
> Aside from it being a needless amount of information to clutter the
> display with, I can pretty much guarantee you won't be able to figure
> out a clean way of sizing the panels to accomodate all that data
> without truncating one or more of them for some selected objects.
> 

Are we talking about the same thing? I'm not suggesting to add a panel.
I'm suggesting to add another box in the status bar (wxStatusBar
object). It won't take any more space than before.


-- 
Guillaume
http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
http://www.dalibo.com


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

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] More information about the selected objects

[Dave Page]

On Saturday, July 14, 2012, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:

> On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 18:57 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Saturday, July 14, 2012, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> > On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 11:28 -0300, Vinicius Santos wrote:
> > >
> > > Not sure I like the point either. We don't have that
> > notation
> > > on
> > > PostgreSQL. I think I would prefer something like
> > "Retrieving
> > > details on
> > > table schema.table" and not say the database.
> > Because if you
> > > add the
> > > database, someone will probably want also the
> > server. It may
> > > not be
> > > usefull to you, but it'll come at some point. And
> > that's quite
> > > a lot of
> > > informations.
> > >
> > > I agree.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Probably we could add some status boxes in the
> > status bar. For
> > > exemple,
> > > a box with a "user@database (server)" (with a lock
> > icon if you
> > > use SSL
> > > for example. Just a thought.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I liked the idea!
> > >
> > > We could add status boxes in front of the information
> > "Retrieving
> > > details ...".
> > >
> > > For example, suppose that is the status bar:
> > >
> > > With 3 status boxes:
> > >
> > > || "Retrieving details on schema.table" || user@database ||
> > server ||
> > >
> > > or with 2 status boxes:
> > >
> > > || "Retrieving details on schema.table" || user@database
> > ( server )
> > > ||
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I think I like the second one better, but this is just my
> > opinion.
> >
> >
> > Aside from it being a needless amount of information to clutter the
> > display with, I can pretty much guarantee you won't be able to figure
> > out a clean way of sizing the panels to accomodate all that data
> > without truncating one or more of them for some selected objects.
> >
>
> Are we talking about the same thing? I'm not suggesting to add a panel.
> I'm suggesting to add another box in the status bar (wxStatusBar
> object). It won't take any more space than before.
>

The bar won't, but the text in it will.


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

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