On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> wrote: > I've never messed with completion so I don't know how hard it is, but my > impression is that it gets added after the fact not because of any > intentional decisions but because people simply forget about it. ISTM it > would be more efficient of community resources to deal with completion in > the original patch, unless there's some reason not to. > > IOW, no, don't make it a hard requirement, but don't omit it simply through > forgetfulness.
Because our biggest problem around here is that it's too easy to get patches committed, so we should add some more requirements? I think it's great to include tab completion support in initial patches if people are willing to do that, but I'm not prepared to insist on it. Anyway, it's not just a yes-or-no thing; it's pretty common that people go back later and add more tab completion to things that already have some tab completion. So if we adopt the rule you are proposing, then the next question will be whether a given patch has ENOUGH tab completion. Ugh. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers