Re: IF (NOT) EXISTS in psql-completion

From: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: IF (NOT) EXISTS in psql-completion
Date: 2017-02-28 07:07:46
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:53:17PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Kyotaro HORIGUCHI (horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp) wrote:
> > I suppose it is for suggesting what kind of word should come
> > there, or avoiding silence for a tab. Or for symmetry with other
> > types of manipulation, like DROP. Another possibility is creating
> > multiple objects with similar names, say CREATE TABLE employee_x1,
> > CREATE TABLE employee_x2. Just trying to complete existing
> > *schema* is one more another possible objective.
> I don't buy any of these arguments either. I *really* don't want us
> going down some road where we try to make sure that hitting 'tab'
> never fails...

Wouldn't that just be a correct, grammar-aware implementation of tab
completion? Why wouldn't you want that?

David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)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:

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tsunakawa, Takayuki 2017-02-28 07:39:45 Statement-level rollback
Previous Message Okano, Naoki 2017-02-28 07:05:35 Re: Keep ECPG comment for log_min_duration_statement