Re: Sup****t for integrated tsearch configuration

On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
> Nothing is really simple on pgAdmin's coding (says the guy who tries
hardly
> to compile it under Windows since last evening... grmbl... :) ).

That shouldn't be hard - what was the problem?

> I was sure I was following the "collection nodes and objects nodes" way
of
> doing. Here are some ascii artwork:
>
> - Databases (3)
>  + DB1
>  + DB2
>  - DB3
>    + Catalogs (2)
>    + Casts (0)
>    + Languages (0)
>    + Schemas (1)
>    + Replication (0)
>    - Text Search
>      + Configurations (2)
>      + Dictionaries (2)
>      + Parsers (2)
>      + Templates (2)
>
> Seems you're right. The Text search node is neither a collection neither
an
> object one. Unfortunately, I don't have a better one.

Logically I think the design is correct - the only 'more correct' way
would be to put the objects directly under a database, but that would
be quite ugly I think.

What you propose should work - it just might need a little thought.
Maybe we need a 'pgGroupObject' node type. Something to ponder on in
spare minutes rather than your 5 days I suspect :-)


-- 
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com

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