At Mon, 27 Feb 2017 10:43:39 +0900, Michael Paquier <> 
wrote in <>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Tom Lane <> wrote:
> > Michael Paquier <> writes:
> >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Tom Lane <> 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.


Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to