Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pgaccess - where to store the own data
From: "Matthew T. OConnor" <matthew@zeut.net>
To: Dave Page <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
Cc: Iavor Raytchev <iavor.raytchev@verysmall.org>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	pgsql-interfaces <pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <03AF4E498C591348A42FC93DEA9661B8677C@mail.vale-housing.co.uk>
References: <03AF4E498C591348A42FC93DEA9661B8677C@mail.vale-housing.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 30 Aug 2002 13:59:22 -0400
Message-Id: <1030730363.13569.5.camel@zeutnull>
Mime-Version: 1.0

> > 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.