tab completion for partitioning

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: tab completion for partitioning
Date: 2017-02-19 16:22:23
Message-ID: CA+TgmobYOj=A8GesiEs_V2Wq46-_w0+7MOwPiNWC+iuzJ-uWjA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 7:15 AM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> Also attaching 0002 (unchanged) for tab-completion support for the new
> partitioning syntax.

At one point you have this:

+ /* Limited completion support for partition bound specification */
+ else if (TailMatches3("ATTACH", "PARTITION", MatchAny))
+ COMPLETE_WITH_CONST("FOR VALUES");
+ else if (TailMatches5("ATTACH", "PARTITION", MatchAny, "FOR", "VALUES"))
+ COMPLETE_WITH_LIST2("FROM (", "IN (");
+ /*

And then later on you have it again:

+ /* Limited completion support for partition bound specification */
+ else if (TailMatches3("PARTITION", "OF", MatchAny))
+ COMPLETE_WITH_CONST("FOR VALUES");
+ else if (TailMatches5("PARTITION", "OF", MatchAny, "FOR", "VALUES"))
+ COMPLETE_WITH_LIST2("FROM (", "IN (");

I don't think there's any benefit in repeating this. I'm not sure
which location to keep, but it doesn't seem to make sense to have it
in two places.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Erik Rijkers 2017-02-19 16:23:29 Re: Logical replication existing data copy - comments origin.c
Previous Message Erik Rijkers 2017-02-19 16:21:37 Re: Logical replication existing data copy - comments origin.c