Re: patch: psql variables tabcomplete

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: patch: psql variables tabcomplete
Date: 2010-10-11 06:09:54
Message-ID: AANLkTi=naHTf+2pSmXt7mec2j=tb2mOZ8xi+Nvnt3sn3@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2010/10/11 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 2010/10/4 Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>>> We don't have commands for display a list of such variables and \echo is
>>> not tab-completed even with the patch. "Only supported by \set" might be
>>> a bit unbalanced.
>
>> it's good idea. I looked on it - and it is job for other patch. Some
>> test are in experimental patch. But this needs more work - output is
>> little bit ugly - I thing so prefix and suffix should not be showed.
>
> I went ahead and applied this (with some cleanup).  I don't see a very
> good reason why the prefix/suffix shouldn't be shown in the completion
> data --- after all, that *is* what it's going to type for you.  In any
> case, preventing that would take some fundamental hacking of the
> readline interface; which would be way more work than it's worth,
> and probably not very portable across the different versions of
> readline either.  So I think we should just be happy with this
> behavior.

I write it before I looked to readline documentation - personally I
don't feel well from output, but the nice output isn't available with
current readline lib :( - so I agree with you. Thank you very much for
commit

Regards

Pavel

>
>                        regards, tom lane
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Fetter 2010-10-11 06:46:15 Support for JDBC setQueryTimeout, et al.
Previous Message Neil Whelchel 2010-10-11 04:15:56 Re: Slow count(*) again...