Thread

1. TABLE tab completion

   Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> — 2011-09-24T10:59:06Z

   TABLE tab completion in psql only completes to tables, not views. but
   the TABLE command works fine for both tables and views (and also
   sequences).
   
   Seems we should just complete it to relations and not tables - or can
   anyone see a particular reason why we shouldn't?
   
   Trivial patch attached.
   
   -- 
    Magnus Hagander
    Me: http://www.hagander.net/
    Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
   

2. Re: TABLE tab completion

   Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> — 2011-09-25T13:06:47Z

   On 24 September 2011 11:59, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
   > TABLE tab completion in psql only completes to tables, not views. but
   > the TABLE command works fine for both tables and views (and also
   > sequences).
   >
   > Seems we should just complete it to relations and not tables - or can
   > anyone see a particular reason why we shouldn't?
   >
   
   Doesn't that mean that "DROP TABLE <tab>" would offer up views as well
   as tables, which would be incorrect?
   
   Regards,
   Dean
   
   

3. Re: TABLE tab completion

   Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> — 2011-09-26T08:37:50Z

   On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 15:06, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> wrote:
   > On 24 September 2011 11:59, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
   >> TABLE tab completion in psql only completes to tables, not views. but
   >> the TABLE command works fine for both tables and views (and also
   >> sequences).
   >>
   >> Seems we should just complete it to relations and not tables - or can
   >> anyone see a particular reason why we shouldn't?
   >>
   >
   > Doesn't that mean that "DROP TABLE <tab>" would offer up views as well
   > as tables, which would be incorrect?
   
   Meh - you are correct, of course. I guess that's why we have code review :-)
   
   So - not a oneliner, but how about something like this?
   
   (Happy to have someone point out a neater way of doing it, not
   entirely fluent in how we do the tab completion..)
   
   -- 
    Magnus Hagander
    Me: http://www.hagander.net/
    Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
   

4. Re: TABLE tab completion

   David Fetter <david@fetter.org> — 2011-09-26T12:29:46Z

   On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:37:50AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
   > On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 15:06, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> wrote:
   > > On 24 September 2011 11:59, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
   > >> TABLE tab completion in psql only completes to tables, not views. but
   > >> the TABLE command works fine for both tables and views (and also
   > >> sequences).
   > >>
   > >> Seems we should just complete it to relations and not tables - or can
   > >> anyone see a particular reason why we shouldn't?
   > >>
   > >
   > > Doesn't that mean that "DROP TABLE <tab>" would offer up views as well
   > > as tables, which would be incorrect?
   > 
   > Meh - you are correct, of course. I guess that's why we have code review :-)
   > 
   > So - not a oneliner, but how about something like this?
   > 
   > (Happy to have someone point out a neater way of doing it, not
   > entirely fluent in how we do the tab completion..)
   
   That's pretty much it.  Should it also (eventually) do SRFs?
   
   Cheers,
   David.
   -- 
   David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
   Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
   Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
   iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
   
   Remember to vote!
   Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
   
   

5. Re: TABLE tab completion

   Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> — 2011-10-24T11:25:05Z

   On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:37, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
   > On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 15:06, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> wrote:
   >> On 24 September 2011 11:59, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
   >>> TABLE tab completion in psql only completes to tables, not views. but
   >>> the TABLE command works fine for both tables and views (and also
   >>> sequences).
   >>>
   >>> Seems we should just complete it to relations and not tables - or can
   >>> anyone see a particular reason why we shouldn't?
   >>>
   >>
   >> Doesn't that mean that "DROP TABLE <tab>" would offer up views as well
   >> as tables, which would be incorrect?
   >
   > Meh - you are correct, of course. I guess that's why we have code review :-)
   >
   > So - not a oneliner, but how about something like this?
   >
   > (Happy to have someone point out a neater way of doing it, not
   > entirely fluent in how we do the tab completion..)
   
   Rebased on top of the changes Tom made to the infrastructure, and applied.
   
   -- 
    Magnus Hagander
    Me: http://www.hagander.net/
    Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/