Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Thread: [HACKERS] tab completion for partitioning

[HACKERS] tab completion for partitioning

From
Robert Haas
Date:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 7:15 AM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> Also attaching 0002 (unchanged) for tab-completion support for the new
> partitioning syntax.

At one point you have this:

+    /* Limited completion support for partition bound specification */
+    else if (TailMatches3("ATTACH", "PARTITION", MatchAny))
+        COMPLETE_WITH_CONST("FOR VALUES");
+    else if (TailMatches5("ATTACH", "PARTITION", MatchAny, "FOR", "VALUES"))
+        COMPLETE_WITH_LIST2("FROM (", "IN (");
+    /*

And then later on you have it again:

+    /* Limited completion support for partition bound specification */
+    else if (TailMatches3("PARTITION", "OF", MatchAny))
+        COMPLETE_WITH_CONST("FOR VALUES");
+    else if (TailMatches5("PARTITION", "OF", MatchAny, "FOR", "VALUES"))
+        COMPLETE_WITH_LIST2("FROM (", "IN (");

I don't think there's any benefit in repeating this.  I'm not sure
which location to keep, but it doesn't seem to make sense to have it
in two places.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: [HACKERS] tab completion for partitioning

From
Amit Langote
Date:
On 2017/02/20 1:22, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 7:15 AM, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> Also attaching 0002 (unchanged) for tab-completion support for the new
>> partitioning syntax.
> 
> At one point you have this:
> 
> +    /* Limited completion support for partition bound specification */
> +    else if (TailMatches3("ATTACH", "PARTITION", MatchAny))
> +        COMPLETE_WITH_CONST("FOR VALUES");
> +    else if (TailMatches5("ATTACH", "PARTITION", MatchAny, "FOR", "VALUES"))
> +        COMPLETE_WITH_LIST2("FROM (", "IN (");
> +    /*
> 
> And then later on you have it again:
> 
> +    /* Limited completion support for partition bound specification */
> +    else if (TailMatches3("PARTITION", "OF", MatchAny))
> +        COMPLETE_WITH_CONST("FOR VALUES");
> +    else if (TailMatches5("PARTITION", "OF", MatchAny, "FOR", "VALUES"))
> +        COMPLETE_WITH_LIST2("FROM (", "IN (");
> 
> I don't think there's any benefit in repeating this.  I'm not sure
> which location to keep, but it doesn't seem to make sense to have it
> in two places.

Thanks for taking a look.  Hm, I think the second part seems to be
needless duplication.  So, I changed it to match using TailMatches2("FOR",
"VALUES") and kept just one instance of it.  The first part is matching
and completing two different commands (ATTACH PARTITION partition_name and
PARTITION OF parent_name), so that seems fine.

Updated patch attached.

Thanks,
Amit

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Attachment

Re: [HACKERS] tab completion for partitioning

From
Robert Haas
Date:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> Thanks for taking a look.  Hm, I think the second part seems to be
> needless duplication.  So, I changed it to match using TailMatches2("FOR",
> "VALUES") and kept just one instance of it.  The first part is matching
> and completing two different commands (ATTACH PARTITION partition_name and
> PARTITION OF parent_name), so that seems fine.

I agree.  Committed this version.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company