On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> >> wrote: >>> Thomas Munro wrote: >>>> New version attached, merging recent changes. >>> >>> I wonder about the TailMatches and Matches macros --- wouldn't it be >>> better to have a single one, renaming TailMatches to Matches and >>> replacing the current Matches() with an initial token that corresponds >>> to anchoring to start of command? Just wondering, not terribly attached >>> to the idea. >> >> + /* TODO:TM -- begin temporary, not part of the patch! */ >> + Assert(!word_matches(NULL, "")); >> + [...] >> + Assert(!word_matches("foo", "")); >> + /* TODO:TM -- end temporary */ >> >> Be sure to not forget to remove that later. > > Thanks for looking at this Michael. It's probably not much fun to > review! Here is a new version with that bit removed. More responses > inline below.
I had a hard time not sleeping when reading it... That's very mechanical. > I agree that would probably be better but Alvaro suggested following > the existing logic in the first pass, which was mostly based on tails, > and then considering simpler head-based patterns in a future pass. Fine with me. So what do we do now? There is your patch, which is already quite big, but as well a second patch based on regexps, which is far bigger. And at the end they provide a similar result: Here is for example what the regexp patch does for some complex checks, like ALTER TABLE RENAME: /* ALTER TABLE xxx RENAME yyy */ - else if (pg_strcasecmp(prev4_wd, "TABLE") == 0 && - pg_strcasecmp(prev2_wd, "RENAME") == 0 && - pg_strcasecmp(prev_wd, "CONSTRAINT") != 0 && - pg_strcasecmp(prev_wd, "TO") != 0) + else if (MATCH("TABLE #id RENAME !CONSTRAINT|TO")) And what Thomas's patch does: + else if (TailMatches5("ALTER", "TABLE", MatchAny, "RENAME", MatchAny) && + !TailMatches1("CONSTRAINT|TO")) The regexp patch makes the negative checks somewhat easier to read (there are 19 positions in tab-complete.c doing that), still inventing a new langage and having a heavy refactoring just tab completion of psql seems a bit too much IMO, so my heart balances in favor of Thomas' stuff. Thoughts from others? -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers