Re: [PATCH] Added TRANSFORM FOR for COMMENT tab completion
От | Shinya Kato |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] Added TRANSFORM FOR for COMMENT tab completion |
Дата | |
Msg-id | e99b935691e85d6e287ee93384ec19b9@oss.nttdata.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | [PATCH] Added TRANSFORM FOR for COMMENT tab completion (katouknl <katouknl@oss.nttdata.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] Added TRANSFORM FOR for COMMENT tab completion
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021-10-27 14:45, Michael Paquier wrote: > 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. In my opinion, it is written in the documentation, so tab-completion of "PROCEDURAL"is good. How about a completion with "LANGUAGE" and "PROCEDURAL LANGUAGE", like "PASSWORD" and "ENCRYPTED PASSWORD" in CREATE ROLE? > + 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. As you said, it may be misleading. I agree to drop it. -- Regards, -- Shinya Kato Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: