Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: > On fre, 2012-03-16 at 13:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm a bit concerned about whether that's actually going to be useful. >> A quick check shows that in the regression database, the proposed patch >> produces 3246 possible completions, which suggests that by the time you >> get down to a unique match you're going to have typed most of the name >> anyway.
> Well, the regression test database is not really an example of real-life > object naming, I think. Perhaps not, but a solid 2000 of those names are from the system-created entries in pg_proc, and the regression DB doesn't have an especially large number of tables either. I doubt that real DBs are likely to have materially fewer completions. This connects somewhat to the discussions we've had in the past about trying to get not-intended-for-public-use functions out of the standard search path. Not that you want to put a full visibility check into the tab-completion query, but if it could simply exclude a "pg_private" namespace, that probably wouldn't be too expensive. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers