From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Making tab-complete.c easier to maintain |
Date: | 2015-12-09 18:31:06 |
Message-ID: | 20151209183106.GC10778@fetter.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 03:49:20PM +0000, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 2:27 PM, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
> > Agreed that the "whole new language" aspect seems like way too big a
> > hammer, given what it actually does.
>
> Which would be easier to update when things change?
This question seems closer to being on point with the patch sets
proposed here.
> Which would be possible to automatically generate from gram.y?
This seems like it goes to a wholesale context-aware reworking of tab
completion rather than the myopic ("What has happened within the past N
tokens?", for slowly increasing N) versions of tab completions in both
the current code and in the two proposals here.
A context-aware tab completion wouldn't care how many columns you were
into a target list, or a FROM list, or whatever, as it would complete
based on the (possibly nested) context ("in a target list", e.g.)
rather than on inferences made from some slightly variable number of
previous tokens.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-12-09 18:31:23 | Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table. |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-12-09 18:21:02 | Re: parallel joins, and better parallel explain |