Hi Niv Greenstein, Thanks for #10142 — merged as-is.
While reviewing it, I noticed that the Geometry Viewer's custom tile provider is configured only on a per-user basis; each user must configure their own tile URL/name/CRS/attribution/zoom individually. However, there is no way for an organization to set one up once for everyone. I opened a new PR #10198 <https://github.com/pgadmin-org/pgadmin4/pull/10198> - it adds a system-wide default (config.DEFAULT_GEOMETRY_VIEWER_PROVIDER) that an administrator sets once in config_local.py/config_distro.py/PGADMIN_CONFIG_*, which then applies to every user who hasn't saved their own preference — a per-user setting always overrides it. Zero conflict risk, since it's the same single preference slot, not a second competing entry. Can you please review and test it? -- Thanks & Regards, Ashesh Vashi EnterpriseDB INDIA: Enterprise PostgreSQL Company <http://www.enterprisedb.com> *http://www.linkedin.com/in/asheshvashi* <http://www.linkedin.com/in/asheshvashi> On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 6:44 PM Niv Green <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello pgAdmin developers, > > I recently opened pull request #10142: > > https://github.com/pgadmin-org/pgadmin4/pull/10142 > > The PR adds configurable custom XYZ tile providers to the Geometry Viewer, > including settings for the provider URL, name, CRS, attribution, and > maximum zoom. > > It also: > > - Preserves the existing built-in base layers when they are compatible. > - Supports providers using EPSG:3857, EPSG:4326, or EPSG:3395. > - Hides incompatible built-in layers when a non-Web Mercator CRS is > selected. > - Includes JavaScript regression tests and documentation updates. > > The PR has been open since July 5, but I have not yet received feedback > from a project maintainer. I understand that pgAdmin is maintained by > volunteers and that review time is limited, but I would appreciate it if > someone could take an initial look or help triage it. > > In particular, please let me know whether the overall approach fits the > project, whether any architectural changes are needed, or whether I should > request a specific reviewer. > > I am happy to address any feedback or make further changes. > > Thank you for your time, > > Niv Greenstein > GitHub: @NivGreenstein >
