Re: [DOC] add missing "[ NO ]" to various "DEPENDS ON" synopses

From: Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [DOC] add missing "[ NO ]" to various "DEPENDS ON" synopses
Date: 2021-02-15 06:57:04
Message-ID: CAB8KJ=iypYudXuMOAMOP4BpkaYbXxk=a2cdJppX0e9mJXWtuig@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2021年2月13日(土) 11:52 Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>:

> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 10:32:14AM +0900, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
> > In the documentation, the "[ NO ]" option is listed in the synopsis for
> > ALTER TRIGGER and ALTER FUNCTION, but not the others.
> > Trivial patch attached.
>
> There are two flavors to cover for 6 commands per gram.y, and you are
> covering all of them. So this looks good to me. I'll apply and
> backpatch in a bit.

Thanks! (Apologies for the preceding blank mail).

It is worth noting that tab-complete.c does a bad
> job in completing those clauses.
>

Indeed it does. Not the most exciting of use cases, though I imagine it
might come in handy for anyone developing an extension, and the
existing implementation is inconsistent (in place for ALTER INDEX,
and partially for ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW, but not the others).
Patch suggestion attached.

Regards

Ian Barwick

--
EnterpriseDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com

Attachment Content-Type Size
psql-no-depends-tab-completion.v1.diff text/x-patch 3.3 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2021-02-15 07:11:58 Re: a misbehavior of partition row movement (?)
Previous Message Ian Lawrence Barwick 2021-02-15 06:52:31 Re: [DOC] add missing "[ NO ]" to various "DEPENDS ON" synopses