2014-08-11 14:59 GMT+02:00 Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 4:16 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> >
> > 2014-08-08 13:58 GMT+02:00 Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 4:31 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 2014-08-07 7:10 GMT+02:00 Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com>:
> >> >
> >> >> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 6:26 AM, Pavel Stehule <
> pavel.steh...@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > Hello
> >> >> >
> >> >> > updated version patch in attachment
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks! But ISTM you forgot to attached the patch.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > grr .. I am sorry
> >>
> >> No problem. Thanks for the patch! Attached is the revised version of the
> >> patch.
> >>
> >> >> >> + /* all psql known variables are included in list by default
> */
> >> >> >> + for (known_varname = known_varnames; *known_varname;
> >> >> >> known_varname++)
> >> >> >> + varnames[nvars++] = pg_strdup(*known_varname);
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Don't we need to append both prefix and suffix to even known
> >> >> >> variables?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ??? I am not sure if I understand well - probably system "read
> only"
> >> >> > variables as DBNAME, USER, VERSION should not be there
> >> >>
> >> >> I had that question because complete_from_variables() is also called
> by
> >> >> the
> >> >> tab-completion of "\echo :" and it shows half-baked variables list.
> So
> >> >> I thought probably we need to change complete_from_variables() more
> to
> >> >> fix the problem.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I understand now.
> >> >
> >> > I fixed it.
> >> >
> >> > I have a question.\echo probably should not to show empty known
> >> > variable.
> >> >
> >> > data for autocomplete for \echo should be same as result of "\set"
> >>
> >> Agreed. I think that only the variables having the set values should be
> >> displayed in "\echo :" case. So I modified complete_from_variables()
> >> so that the unset variables are not shown in that case but all the
> >> variables
> >> are shown in the tab-completion of "\set".
> >>
> >> >> >> + else if (strcmp(prev2_wd, "\\set") == 0)
> >> >> >> + {
> >> >> >> + if (strcmp(prev_wd, "AUTOCOMMIT") == 0)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ISTM that some psql variables like IGNOREEOF are not there. Why
> not?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > yes, there are not complete for DBNAME, ENCODING, FETCH_COUNT,
> >> >> > HISTCONTROL,
> >> >> > HISTFILE, HISTSIZE, HOST, IGNOREEOFF, PROMPT*,USER, VERSION
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There are more reasons:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > * paremeter is not a enum (string, number or both): FETCH_COUNT,
> >> >> > PROMPT,
> >> >> > HISTSIZE, ..
> >> >> >
> >> >> > * variable is pseudo read only - change has not any effect:
> DBNAME,
> >> >> > ENCODING, VERSION
> >> >>
> >> >> So HISTCONTROL should be there because it doesn't have such reasons
> at
> >> >> all?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > yes
> >>
> >> ISTM that you forgot to add HISTCONTROL to your patch. So I just added
> >> that.
> >>
> >> I added the tab-completion for "\unset" command. Like "\echo :", only
> >> the variables having the set values should be displayed in "\unset"
> case.
> >
> >
> > perfect
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> I changed complete_from_variables() so that it checks the memory size of
> >> the variable array even when appending the known variables. If the
> memory
> >> size is not enough, it's dynamically increased. Practically this check
> >> would
> >> not be required because the initial size of the array is enough larger
> >> than
> >> the number of the known variables. I added this as the safe-guard.
> >>
> >> Typo: IGNOREEOFF -> IGNOREEOF
> >>
> >> I removed the value "none" from the value list of "ECHO" because it's
> not
> >> documented and a user might get confused when he or she sees the
> >> undocumented
> >> value "none". Thought?
> >
> >
> > isn't better to fix doc? I don't know any reason why we should not to
> > support "none"
>
> I'm OK with this. The attached patch adds the support of "none" value both
> in ECHO and HISTCONTROL variables (because HISTCONTROL had the same
> problem as ECHO had), and also adds the description of that value into
> the document.
>
> > I looked to code, you removed a check against duplicate varname in list.
> Is
> > it ok?
>
> Oh, just revived that code.
>
yes, It is looking well
regards
Pavel
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Fujii Masao
>
