From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: TABLE tab completion |
Date: | 2011-10-24 11:25:05 |
Message-ID: | CABUevEz1dMUpF7RdBHtikHkFAXAToTv+w9bHoDrezwcZayz1jw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:37, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 15:06, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 24 September 2011 11:59, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>> TABLE tab completion in psql only completes to tables, not views. but
>>> the TABLE command works fine for both tables and views (and also
>>> sequences).
>>>
>>> Seems we should just complete it to relations and not tables - or can
>>> anyone see a particular reason why we shouldn't?
>>>
>>
>> Doesn't that mean that "DROP TABLE <tab>" would offer up views as well
>> as tables, which would be incorrect?
>
> Meh - you are correct, of course. I guess that's why we have code review :-)
>
> So - not a oneliner, but how about something like this?
>
> (Happy to have someone point out a neater way of doing it, not
> entirely fluent in how we do the tab completion..)
Rebased on top of the changes Tom made to the infrastructure, and applied.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-10-24 11:25:36 | Re: EXECUTE tab completion |
Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2011-10-24 11:05:15 | Re: GiST for range types (was Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor) |