From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: IF (NOT) EXISTS in psql-completion |
Date: | 2017-02-27 01:43:39 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQr7apg8W+p41W1azTjy7LSasSEvWvKePTU4knnxWCZkw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> BTW ... can anyone explain to me the reason why we offer to complete
>>> CREATE OBJECT with the names of existing objects of that kind?
>
>> Isn't that to facilitate commands appended after CREATE SCHEMA? Say
>> table foo is in schema1, and creating it in schema2 gets easier with
>> tab completion?
>
> Seems like pretty much of a stretch. I've never done anything like
> that, have you?
Never, but that was the only reason I could think about. I recall
reading something else on -hackers but I cannot put my finger on it,
nor does a lookup at the archives help... Perhaps that's the one I
just mentioned as well.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-02-27 02:08:35 | Re: SerializedSnapshotData alignment |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-02-27 01:20:09 | Re: IF (NOT) EXISTS in psql-completion |