On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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.
Indeed, having worked on the 9.6 refactoring a bit as well... I'll vote for not doing this again as HEAD is in a more readable shape compared to the pre-9.5 area, and I am not convinced that it is worth the trouble. There are a couple of things that can be extracted from this set of patches, but I would vote for not doing the same level of refactoring. > 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? As "if not exists" is defined after the object type if would not be that complicated to add completion for IE/INE after the object type with a set of THING_* flags in words_after_create. One missing piece would be to add completion for the objects themselves after IE or INE have been entered by the user, but I would think that tweaking the checks on words_after_create[i] would be doable as well. And that would be localized. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers