On 2014-05-05 09:10:17 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com>wrote: > > > On 2014-05-03 00:13:45 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: > > > On Friday, May 2, 2014, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Why should we exclude system schemata? That seems more likely to be > > confusing than helpful? I can see a point in excluding another backend's > > temp tables, but otherwise? > > > > I've personally never had a need to set the search_path to a system schema, > and I guess I was implicitly modelling this on what is returned by \dn, not > by \dnS. I wouldn't object much to including them; that would be better > than not having any completion. I just don't see much point. > > And now playing a bit with the system ones, I think it would be more > confusing to offer them. pg_catalog and pg_temp_<appropriate> always get > searched, whether you put them in the search_path or not.
I thought about committing this but couldn't get over this bit. If you type "SELECT * FROM pg_cat<tab>" it'll get autocompleted to pg_catalog.pg_ and "pg_temp<tab>" will list all the temp schemas including the numeric and toast ones. So we have precedent for *not* bothering about excluding any schemas. I don't think we should start doing so in a piecemal fashion in an individual command's completion. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
