Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I'm not against tab-completing functions, if people think that's
>> useful. I am against tab-completing them in 1% of use-cases, which is
>> what this patch accomplishes. The fact that it's short doesn't make it
>> good.
> Our tab completion is in general very incomplete; we have made a
> practice of cherry-picking the most commonly encountered cases and
> handling only those. Whether or not that is a good policy is a
> philosophical question, but there is no reason to hold this particular
> patch to a higher standard than the quality of our tab completion code
> in general.
Well, if you want a patch with low standards, what about tab-completing
function names anywhere that we do not see context suggesting something
else? I really think that doing it only immediately after SELECT is
going to prove far more of an annoyance than a help, because once you
get used to relying on it you are going to wish it worked elsewhere.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
