| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Jeevan Chalke <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: psql tabcomplete - minor bugfix - tabcomplete for SET ROLE TO xxx |
| Date: | 2015-09-08 16:39:09 |
| Message-ID: | 20150908163909.GE2912@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-09-08 07:06:04 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > 2015-09-07 21:44 GMT+02:00 Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>:
> > > The spellings for boolean values were a relatively small subset of what
> > > the backend accepts - it's now on,off,true,false,yes,no,1,0. I'm not
> > > sure whether that's a good idea. Comments?
> >
> > if somebody prefer true, false, and we will support only on, off, then the
> > tabcomplete will not be too user friendly :(
> >
> > "1, 0" can be out - but other?
>
> After sleeping on it I think we should keep all of them - they'll show
> for lots of "boolean like" GUCs (e.g. constraint_exclusion, sync_commit,
> huge_pages) so not showing them for booleans just seems
> inconsisten. Unless somebody protests pdq I'll push it that way.
Yeah, seems fine to list the whole lot.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shay Rojansky | 2015-09-08 16:43:19 | Odd/undocumented precedence of concatenation operator |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-09-08 16:35:17 | Re: gin_fuzzy_search_limit and postgresql.conf.sample |