From: | Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Kirk Wolak <wolakk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Discussion: psql \et <trigger_name> -> edit the trigger function |
Date: | 2023-05-10 16:24:54 |
Message-ID: | 87r0rotaqx.fsf@wibble.ilmari.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kirk Wolak <wolakk(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> We already have
> \ef
> \ev
>
> The use case here is simply that it saves me from:
> \d <table>
> [scroll through all the fields]
> [often scroll right]
> select function name
> \ef [paste function name]
>
> and tab completion is much narrower
I think it would make more sense to model it on the filtering letters
available for \df:
\df[anptw][S+] [FUNCPTRN [TYPEPTRN ...]]
list [only agg/normal/procedure/trigger/window] functions
I just noticed that tab completion after e.g. \dft does not take the
function type restriction into account, so the solution for \ef<letters>
should be made to work for both. I wonder if it would even be possible
to share the tab completion filtering conditions with the actual
implementation of \df.
Also, I notice that \df only tab completes functions (i.e. not
procedures), although it actually returns all routines.
> When doing conversions and reviews all of this stuff has to be reviewed.
> Oftentimes, renamed, touched.
>
> I am 100% willing to write the code, docs, etc. but would appreciate
> feedback.
I'm happy to assist with and review at least the tab completion parts of
this effort.
> Kirk...
- ilmari
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-05-10 16:32:16 | Re: [PATCH] Use RelationClose rather than table_close in heap_create_with_catalog |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2023-05-10 16:19:34 | Re: Discussion: psql \et <trigger_name> -> edit the trigger function |