| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Shinya Kato <Shinya11(dot)Kato(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ken Kato <katouknl(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Suraj Khamkar <khamkarsuraj(dot)b(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Added TRANSFORM FOR for COMMENT tab completion |
| Date: | 2021-10-27 05:45:01 |
| Message-ID: | YXjnXSbJMYOE+075@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 05:04:24PM +0900, Shinya Kato wrote:
> Barring any objection, I will change status to Ready for Committer.
+ else if (Matches("COMMENT", "ON", "PROCEDURAL"))
+ COMPLETE_WITH("LANGUAGE");
+ else if (Matches("COMMENT", "ON", "PROCEDURAL", "LANGUAGE"))
+ COMPLETE_WITH_QUERY(Query_for_list_of_languages);
I don't think that there is much point in being this picky either with
the usage of PROCEDURAL, as we already complete a similar and simpler
grammar with LANGUAGE. I would just remove this part of the patch.
+ else if (Matches("COMMENT", "ON", "OPERATOR"))
+ COMPLETE_WITH("CLASS", "FAMILY");
Isn't this one wrong? Operators can have comments, and we'd miss
them. This is mentioned upthread, but it seems to me that we'd better
drop this part of the patch if the operator naming part cannot be
solved easily.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2021-10-27 06:34:23 | RE: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-10-27 05:43:17 | Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side |