At Mon, 27 Feb 2017 10:43:39 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com>
wrote in <cab7npqqr7apg8w+p41w1aztjy7lsassevwvkeptu4knnxwc...@mail.gmail.com>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >>> BTW ... can anyone explain to me the reason why we offer to complete
> >>> CREATE OBJECT with the names of existing objects of that kind?
> >> Isn't that to facilitate commands appended after CREATE SCHEMA? Say
> >> table foo is in schema1, and creating it in schema2 gets easier with
> >> tab completion?
> > Seems like pretty much of a stretch. I've never done anything like
> > that, have you?
> Never, but that was the only reason I could think about. I recall
> reading something else on -hackers but I cannot put my finger on it,
> nor does a lookup at the archives help... Perhaps that's the one I
> just mentioned as well.
I suppose it is for suggesting what kind of word should come
there, or avoiding silence for a tab. Or for symmetry with other
types of manipulation, like DROP. Another possibility is creating
multiple objects with similar names, say CREATE TABLE
employee_x1, CREATE TABLE employee_x2. Just trying to complete
existing *schema* is one more another possible objective.
NTT Open Source Software Center
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: