On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 10:55 PM Ashesh Vashi <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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? > Tested and merged by my colleague (Hitesh). -- Thanks, Ashesh Vashi > > -- > > 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 >> >
