| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Shinya Kato <shinya11(dot)kato(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Partitioned tables and [un]loggedness |
| Date: | 2025-06-04 16:15:29 |
| Message-ID: | aEBxIcAiiDVlQvdx@nathan |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 07:05:20PM +0900, Shinya Kato wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 6:55 PM Shinya Kato <shinya11(dot)kato(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Should we consider preventing tab completion for PARTITION BY
>> immediately after CREATE TABLE name (...)? Or is it fine to leave it
>> as is, given that it's syntactically correct?
>
> Sorry.
> CREATE TABLE name (...) -> CREATE UNLOGGED TABLE name (...)
I see no benefit in recommending things that are guaranteed to error. In
commit 5c1ce1b, we removed tab completion for CREATE UNLOGGED MATERIALIZED
VIEW even though it is supported by the grammar. The partitioned table
case sounds like roughly the same situation.
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-06-04 16:19:28 | Re: like pg_shmem_allocations, but fine-grained for DSM registry ? |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2025-06-04 16:10:58 | Re: ABI Compliance Checker GSoC Project |