Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94B15475921 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 13:57:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailrtr03.ntelos.net (mailrtr03.ntelos.net [216.12.0.103]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCA794758FE for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 13:57:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wsogmm2 (chas-108-72.access.ntelos.net [216.12.108.72]) by mailrtr03.ntelos.net (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g84HvYt28231; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 13:57:34 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: "John L. Turner" Reply-To: jlt@wvinter.net Organization: JCI Inc. To: Brett Schwarz , Iavor Raytchev Subject: Re: [pgaccess-developers] the current 'schema' tab - renaming ideas Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 13:54:19 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.2 Cc: pgsql-interfaces , pgaccess - developers References: <1031159281.2322.9339.camel@thor> In-Reply-To: <1031159281.2322.9339.camel@thor> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <200209041354.19026.jlt@wvinter.net> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200209/36 X-Sequence-Number: 3097 On Wednesday 04 September 2002 17:07, Brett Schwarz wrote: > But in relational theory, doesn't relations refer to what we commonly > refer to as tables? I think this would be confusing as well. However, I > do agree that it would be cool to have it automatically generated... In MS Access they can be a combination of Queries and Tables. Not knowing any better, if it a relationship of any kind, then call it a=20 relation. At least us unwashed from the MS Access world would get a better handle on it. ( if that is what they really are ) John > > On Wed, 2002-09-04 at 10:00, Iavor Raytchev wrote: > > Ross and Iavor: > > > > > BTW, has the 'schema' tab been renamed yet? With actual > > > > > schema > > > > > in 7.3, that'll get confusing. > > > > > > > > Not renamed yet. > > > > > > In which case, we need to come up with a different name. How > > > does > > > "diagrams" strike you all? > > > > Hm... In MS Access it is called 'Relations' which sounds kind of > > correct. Basically now we just display them, so 'Diagrams' could be > > correct for us for now. In MS Access the relations are actually built > > there. That's what I would like us to do - use the current 'Schema' tab > > (they are not tabs anymore in the new interface) and make it able to > > build relations (represented in the code with referential integrity). > > Then 'Diagrams' would not fit, but 'Relations'. Also 'References'. > > > > Iavor --=20 John Turner JCI Inc. http://home.ntelos.net/~JLT "Just because you do not know the answer does not mean that someone else does" Stephen J. Gould, {rip}