Re: [PATCH] Added TRANSFORM FOR for COMMENT tab completion
Shinya Kato <shinya11.kato@oss.nttdata.com>
From: Shinya Kato <Shinya11.Kato@oss.nttdata.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Ken Kato <katouknl@oss.nttdata.com>, Suraj Khamkar
<khamkarsuraj.b@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2021-10-27T06:54:03Z
Lists: 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
Commits
-
Improve psql tab completion for COMMENT
- a5b336b8b9e0 15.0 landed