On Saturday, July 9, 2011, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 13:39 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 9, 2011, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
>>
>> > I would prefer to only refresh the old parent node, and the new parent
>> > node. But we have no way to know the new parent node
On 9 July 2011 20:55, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 15:14 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> BTW, just commited and pushed your patch. Thanks again.
\o/ Thanks again Guillaume.
--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935
EnterpriseDB U
On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 15:14 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 9 July 2011 12:56, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> > On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 10:33 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> >> On 9 July 2011 09:28, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 00:23 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> >> >> On 9 July 2011 00:
On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 13:39 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> On Saturday, July 9, 2011, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
>
> > I would prefer to only refresh the old parent node, and the new parent
> > node. But we have no way to know the new parent node. So I refresh all
> > schemas. Which will bring other per
On 9 July 2011 12:56, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 10:33 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 9 July 2011 09:28, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
>> > On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 00:23 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>> >> On 9 July 2011 00:12, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 21:
On Saturday, July 9, 2011, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> I would prefer to only refresh the old parent node, and the new parent
> node. But we have no way to know the new parent node. So I refresh all
> schemas. Which will bring other performance issues for users with big
> schemas.
I wonder if we
On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 10:33 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 9 July 2011 09:28, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> > On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 00:23 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> >> On 9 July 2011 00:12, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 21:55 +0200, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 201
On 9 July 2011 09:28, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 00:23 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 9 July 2011 00:12, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 21:55 +0200, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 20:06 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>> >> > On 8 July 201
On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 00:23 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 9 July 2011 00:12, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 21:55 +0200, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 20:06 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> >> > On 8 July 2011 19:46, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> >> > > On Thu, 20
On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 01:15 +0200, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 00:12 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> > On 8 July 2011 20:57, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> > > It's not easy to do, I understand you got carried away. Happened
> > > sometimes to me too. Still happens actually.
> >
> > F
On 9 July 2011 00:12, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 21:55 +0200, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
>> On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 20:06 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>> > On 8 July 2011 19:46, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
>> > > On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 23:24 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>> > >> On 7 July 20
On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 00:12 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 8 July 2011 20:57, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> > It's not easy to do, I understand you got carried away. Happened
> > sometimes to me too. Still happens actually.
>
> Found out this patch doesn't contain my removal of a duplicate section
>
On 8 July 2011 20:57, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> It's not easy to do, I understand you got carried away. Happened
> sometimes to me too. Still happens actually.
Found out this patch doesn't contain my removal of a duplicate section
of code in dlgTextSearchConfiguration.cpp, so now if the name of
On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 21:55 +0200, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 20:06 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> > On 8 July 2011 19:46, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 23:24 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> > >> On 7 July 2011 23:20, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> > >> > On Wed, 2
On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 20:53 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 8 July 2011 20:52, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 20:46 +0200, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 23:24 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> >> > On 7 July 2011 23:20, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> >> > > On Wed, 20
On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 20:06 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 8 July 2011 19:46, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 23:24 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> >> On 7 July 2011 23:20, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 11:59 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> >> >> add_schemas_to_all
On 8 July 2011 20:52, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 20:46 +0200, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
>> On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 23:24 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>> > On 7 July 2011 23:20, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
>> > > On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 11:59 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>> > >> add_schemas_
On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 20:46 +0200, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 23:24 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> > On 7 July 2011 23:20, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 11:59 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> > >> add_schemas_to_all_items_filtered.patch - same patch as before, bu
On Friday, July 8, 2011, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 8 July 2011 20:15, Dave Page wrote:
* all extension changes are wrong according to me because they aren't
schema objects, but database objects. I don't keep them.
>>>
>>> The reason why I based it on schema is because I wanted it to inh
On 8 July 2011 20:15, Dave Page wrote:
>>> * all extension changes are wrong according to me because they aren't
>>> schema objects, but database objects. I don't keep them.
>>
>> The reason why I based it on schema is because I wanted it to inherit
>> the schema combobox object and its source
>> * all extension changes are wrong according to me because they aren't
>> schema objects, but database objects. I don't keep them.
>
> The reason why I based it on schema is because I wanted it to inherit
> the schema combobox object and its source for a list of schemas so
> lots of redundant
On 8 July 2011 19:46, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 23:24 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 7 July 2011 23:20, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 11:59 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>> >> add_schemas_to_all_items_filtered.patch - same patch as before, but
>> >> with th
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 23:24 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 7 July 2011 23:20, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 11:59 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> >> add_schemas_to_all_items_filtered.patch - same patch as before, but
> >> with the above patch contents removed or adjusted to assume t
On 7 July 2011 23:20, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 11:59 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>> add_schemas_to_all_items_filtered.patch - same patch as before, but
>> with the above patch contents removed or adjusted to assume the fixes
>> have been applied.
>>
>
> Not yet done. I'll try
On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 11:59 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 5 July 2011 20:47, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 20:23 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> >> but left it where it
> >> was. In order to implement these changes, I had to also fix quite a
> >> few bugs, and while I was at it,
Me too...it's quite hard to get in ;)
GetNodePath returns a string representing an language dependent node path:
Server Groups/localhost/Databases/myDb/Schemas/mySchema/Tables/myTable
SetCurrentNodePath accpet the string node path and select's the desired
object.
During implementing search ob
On 5 July 2011 21:08, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 21:01 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 5 July 2011 20:47, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
>> > Hi Thom,
>> >
>> > On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 20:23 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >> I noticed that objects which can be moved to diffe
On 5 July 2011 21:14, Jasmin Dizdarevic wrote:
>> > > Did you fix the issue with the refresh of the browser? (I can't check
>> > > yet, I'm doing a last time compile of Jasmin's patch :) )
>> >
>> > I got it refreshing the node in the original schema, but not the
>> > destination one.
>> >
>>
>> W
2011/7/5 Guillaume Lelarge
> On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 21:01 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> > On 5 July 2011 20:47, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> > > Hi Thom,
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 20:23 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> > >> [...]
> > >> I noticed that objects which can be moved to different schemas
On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 21:01 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 5 July 2011 20:47, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> > Hi Thom,
> >
> > On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 20:23 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> I noticed that objects which can be moved to different schemas can't
> >> be moved in PgAdmin, so I looked
On 5 July 2011 20:51, Dave Page wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks a lot for your work. This patch was something I was waiting for.
>
> A few weeks back I had to talk Thom into posting a 2 line fix. I'm
> beginning to think I may have unleashed some s
On 5 July 2011 20:47, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> Hi Thom,
>
> On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 20:23 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>> [...]
>> I noticed that objects which can be moved to different schemas can't
>> be moved in PgAdmin, so I looked to see if there was any request to
>> have this implemented, and f
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 20:51 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Thanks a lot for your work. This patch was something I was waiting for.
>>
>> A few weeks back I had to talk Thom
On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 20:51 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks a lot for your work. This patch was something I was waiting for.
>
> A few weeks back I had to talk Thom into posting a 2 line fix. I'm
> beginning to think I may have u
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
wrote:
>
> Thanks a lot for your work. This patch was something I was waiting for.
A few weeks back I had to talk Thom into posting a 2 line fix. I'm
beginning to think I may have unleashed some sort of rampant patch
beast...
> BTW, are you going
Hi Thom,
On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 20:23 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> [...]
> I noticed that objects which can be moved to different schemas can't
> be moved in PgAdmin, so I looked to see if there was any request to
> have this implemented, and found this ticket:
> http://code.pgadmin.org/trac/ticket/5
36 matches
Mail list logo
