Re: [PATCH] Tab completion for VACUUM of partitioned tables
От | Fujii Masao |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] Tab completion for VACUUM of partitioned tables |
Дата | |
Msg-id | e867ebc3-b56b-9629-57f6-9d7b965c4eea@oss.nttdata.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | [PATCH] Tab completion for VACUUM of partitioned tables (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] Tab completion for VACUUM of partitioned tables
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020/07/30 10:46, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 08:44:26AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: >> Isn't it better to add the comment explaining why toast tables are >> excluded from the tab completion for vacuum while they are vacuumable? > > Sounds sensible, still it does not apply only to vacuum. I would go > as far as just adding a comment at the beginning of the block for > schema queries: Yes, that seems better. BTW, one thing I think a bit strange is that indexes for toast tables are included in tab-completion for REINDEX, for example. That is, "REINDEX INDEX<tab>" displays "pg_toast.", and "REINDEX INDEX pg_toast.<tab>" displays indexes for toast tables. Maybe it's better to exclude them, too. But there seems no simple way to do that. So I'm ok with this current situation. > "Never include toast tables in any of those queries to avoid > unnecessary bloat in the completions." > >> The patch looks good to me except that. > > Indeed. FWIW, I would also adjust the comment on top of > Query_for_list_of_indexables to not say "index creation", but just > "supporting indexing" instead. > > Fujii-san, perhaps you would prefer taking care of this patch? I am > fine to do it if you wish. Of course I'm fine if you work on this patch. So please feel free to do that! Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: