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.
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: