| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Making tab-complete.c easier to maintain |
| Date: | 2015-12-31 00:13:49 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSKK1DinEALv-00hhRJ740JhWVvHoanXzRsQpmJen=8BA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 11:21 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>> OK, here are new patches.
>> - 0001 switches a bunch of TailMatches to Matches. Do we want to care
>> about the case where a schema is created following by a bunch of
>> objects? I mean stuff like "CREATE SCHEMA hoge CREATE TABLE ..." where
>> the current completion would work fine. The performance gains seem
>> worth it compared to the number of people actually using it, the point
>> has just not been raised yet.
>
> I'd rather have the completion work for that case than get a few
> microseconds speedup. As far as I recall, it's only four commands that
> must retain the old coding.
Fine for me this way.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2015-12-31 01:20:02 | Re: Revisiting pg_stat_statements and IN() (Was: Re: pg_stat_statements fingerprinting logic and ArrayExpr) |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-12-31 00:12:13 | Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review |