On 13 Aug 2005 21:42:45 -0400, Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > However, if you favor a "no thought required" approach, listing 'em
> > all is certainly the path of least resistance. I'm just dubious that
> > that maximizes the usefulness of tab completion.
> I'm not sure if you're interested, but my 2c speaking as a user would be for
> tab completion to include all variables. I often hit tab completion in new
> programs just to find out what's out there and would take something missing to
> be positive proof it didn't exist.
Oh, I usually do the same thing. I guess my approach could summarized as:
I assume tab-completion is not too smart -- it just completes one of valid
values. And at the times where tab-completion is smart, it is smart and
configurable -- as ZSH tab-completion. And were PostgreSQL's tab-completion
go "the smart way" I would be for adding a GUC which allowed to fine-grain
what it actually gives (all variables, settable variables, 'vacuum%'
and 'enable%'
variables, etc. ;))).
Regards,
Dawid
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
