Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1l2WV0-0002Nb-KM for pgadmin-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 09:43:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1l2WUz-0000Zz-Hx for pgadmin-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 09:43:29 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1l2WUz-0000Zs-BS for pgadmin-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 09:43:29 +0000 Received: from mail-ej1-x635.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::635]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1l2WUw-000305-O6 for pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 09:43:28 +0000 Received: by mail-ej1-x635.google.com with SMTP id by1so1723087ejc.0 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 01:43:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pgadmin.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=RAdGvMcFJ20rTs0qdshlruqBIMLypGoo8rY+V6qSgfo=; b=jv+d9tyuONtuU/gmS+kEo75985f0v5bEZGcyNCeYVBzonuGKz8TTUSshVNiyYYmqmr gsgiQ8cKnp14fa+qynFmaX8DeS/FiBItBg6bG19rqebFHQUpwXw72QWZhVUfUUuzgGMD lZKd0fiVBhtlOTKa/BmTtRcP6gXNN3mGy59U1fWETFvBPvMvcuuPuWriIl7sLrB2C/tS Iuwy7xXx7A7BVVn/q7UjO+lm6GvPrDg/SRzb78i5UqQ6X45zaoqVZ0kV45pPRDxhi4Jc kDOEHIVRv2TDojTYA3CtM94nBBFmGwuSNI7Ait4k0RrxDSl/DeeYy5ziSHh3A0WjoBfH 0Yjg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=RAdGvMcFJ20rTs0qdshlruqBIMLypGoo8rY+V6qSgfo=; b=qAUkgAoMiTmLWwpV/6Y+A5Jnx41eDgvJ4viGf9FC7NvoN8srivbZQIu83FXrKhDj5d C7beSLxNaHZh70d8TvJWX9FGNrSoqFg7OU2XOkcF+KCGt5QJw2tCNPopNAYLaYmUMG/G zejzkqOiiMWW72DW0vPNFnonlpQ29QhQbrFTAQ8aNHZQJ+0g2/UGnJKQtiNUWFhPziSU Kjr5x1TCKx/THkVpnwfkPps/5ypRse01bAXddlzwfcyrHhjmpNi73Sy1ifdGDNYj2fvy 3U8ZQ7ci3i0egQ8WLIvjGLEvbGQ3/VrB18sNs72LcRqcHNhWXQFdWQ/NZtZJGP1UBqKV MCpQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532KiQBqOj1VC7iOZY5jpKOHpa9SWWFR7fi3hAR4F2rAwPzRuKCK Kja2WQumT/4SlMyCCUC1yYIPwS9XlNibQGhyiVitYQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxGDmNWJI/fqZ+kCjScmSUyQzl689e5qm7g4nw+i+padiEEsAHNZDDliGuVGpsSMhIZv92XOiqvBGRNeibei2Q= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:158c:: with SMTP id k12mr8881759ejd.119.1611222204235; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 01:43:24 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Dave Page Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 09:43:13 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [pgAdmin][RM-6143]: Shared server entries not getting deleted. To: Akshay Joshi Cc: Nikhil Mohite , pgadmin-hackers Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000235a8e05b965e747" List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk --000000000000235a8e05b965e747 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" This seems like a very bad idea. What if the user that has left was the user that setup 50 connections used by everyone else? Deleting those shared entries is (I would guess) most likely *not* what the majority of users would want, and the current behaviour is definitely safest. We should make this optional; i.e. ask the use if they want shared servers created by the user to be deleted. If they say no, they should be reassigned to another user; either the admin that's deleting the user, or their choice of user (a little more complex of course, but more flexible). Please revert this, until the deletion is made optional. On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 9:23 AM Akshay Joshi wrote: > Thanks, patch applied. > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:18 PM Nikhil Mohite < > nikhil.mohite@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> Hi Team, >> >> Please find the attached patch for RM-6143 >> : Shared server entries not >> getting deleted. >> Added code to delete shared server entries if the admin deletes the user >> from user management. >> >> >> -- >> *Thanks & Regards,* >> *Nikhil Mohite* >> *Software Engineer.* >> *EDB Postgres* >> *Mob.No: +91-7798364578.* >> > > > -- > *Thanks & Regards* > *Akshay Joshi* > *pgAdmin Hacker | Principal Software Architect* > *EDB Postgres * > > *Mobile: +91 976-788-8246* > -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com --000000000000235a8e05b965e747 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This seems like a very bad idea. What if the user that has= left was the user that setup 50 connections used by everyone else?
Deleting those shared entries is (I would guess) most likely=C2= =A0*not* what the majority of users would want, and the current behaviour i= s definitely safest.

We should make this optional;= i.e. ask the use if they want shared servers created by the user to be del= eted. If they say no, they should be reassigned to another user; either the= admin that's deleting the user, or their choice of user (a little more= complex of course, but more flexible).

Please rev= ert this, until the deletion is made optional.=C2=A0

On Thu, Jan 21, 2= 021 at 9:23 AM Akshay Joshi <akshay.joshi@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
Thanks, patch applied.<= /div>
O= n Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:18 PM Nikhil Mohite <nikhil.mohite@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
Hi Team,

Please find the attached patch f= or RM-6143:=C2=A0Shared server entries not getting deleted.
Add= ed code to delete shared server entries if the admin deletes the user from = user management.


--
Thanks & Regards,
Nikhil Mohite<= /div>
Software Engineer.
<= b>Mob.No: +91-7798364578.


--
Thank= s & Regards
Akshay Joshi
pgAdmin Hacker | Principal Softw= are Architect
EDB Po= stgres
Mobile: +91 976-788-8246



--
--000000000000235a8e05b965e747--