| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Tab completion of SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION |
| Date: | 2006-02-01 05:56:00 |
| Message-ID: | 25911.1138773360@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> writes:
> On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 10:28 +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>> What if that role has a maximum of one connection, etc.?
> Considering it would only be used when the alternative was to say
> "Sorry, tab completion unavailable", I really don't see these as
> problems -- fall back to saying it cannot be done.
The point is that this can hardly be claimed to be a "zero failure mode"
implementation, any more than is the method of saving the tab completion
list after first successful fetch. Since the latter seems far simpler
and lower-overhead, I'd go with it...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-02-01 06:23:34 | Re: Tab completion of SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION |
| Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2006-02-01 02:30:23 | Re: Tab completion of SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION |