Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > Yeah, maybe, but we'd need a committer to take more of an interest in > this patch series. Personally, I'm wondering why we need a series of > 19 patches to add tab completion support for IF NOT EXISTS. The > feature which is the subject of this thread arrives in patch 0017, and > a lot of the patches which come before that seem to change a lot of > stuff without actually improving much that would really benefit users.
FWIW, one reason this committer hasn't jumped in is that we already rewrote tab-complete.c pretty completely in 9.6. If we accept a patch that completely rewrites it again, we're going to be faced with maintaining three fundamentally different implementations for the next three-plus years (until 9.5 dies). Admittedly, we don't back-patch fixes in tab-complete.c every week, but a look at the git history says we do need to do that several times a year. Also, the nature of the primary refactoring (changing the big else-chain into standalone ifs, if I read it correctly) is particularly bad from a back-patching standpoint because all you have to do is insert an "else", or fail to insert one, to silently and almost completely break either one or the other branch. And I don't really understand why that's a good idea anyway: surely we can return at most one set of completions, so how is turning the function into a lot of independent actions a win? So I'd be a whole lot happier if it didn't do that. Can we really not add the desired features in a more localized fashion? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers