Re: [PATCH]Feature improvement for MERGE tab completion

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
Cc: bt22kawamotok <bt22kawamotok(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Shinya Kato <Shinya11(dot)Kato(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCH]Feature improvement for MERGE tab completion
Date: 2022-09-21 10:40:00
Message-ID: 20220921104000.64a2pp3wmhwlo37u@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2022-Sep-21, Fujii Masao wrote:

> How about adding something like PartialMatches() that checks whether
> the keywords are included in the input string or not? If so, we can restrict
> some tab-completion rules to operating only on MERGE, as follows. I attached
> the WIP patch (0002 patch) that introduces PartialMatches().
> Is this approach over-complicated? Thought?

I think it's fine to backpatch your 0001 to 15 and put 0002 in master.

Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer —
"I can't go to a restaurant and order food because I keep looking at the
fonts on the menu. Five minutes later I realize that it's also talking
about food" (Donald Knuth)

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bharath Rupireddy 2022-09-21 10:40:38 Re: Refactor backup related code (was: Is it correct to say, "invalid data in file \"%s\"", BACKUP_LABEL_FILE in do_pg_backup_stop?)
Previous Message Peter Smith 2022-09-21 10:22:42 Re: Add common function ReplicationOriginName.