Re: [HACKERS] patch: autocomplete for functions

2012-06-18 Thread Josh Kupershmidt
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: Hello I found so this extremely simple patch should be useful. It helps for pattern SELECT fx(); There was thread about it. Hi Pavel, I signed up to be reviewer for this patch, and finally got around to taking a

Re: [HACKERS] patch: autocomplete for functions

2012-06-18 Thread Josh Kupershmidt
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote: I'm rather of the contrary opinion -- surely if we're going to complete function names, we should only complete those that are in schemas in the path; similarly for column names. I think it makes sense to only

Re: [HACKERS] patch: autocomplete for functions

2012-03-26 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On mån, 2012-03-19 at 15:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: This connects somewhat to the discussions we've had in the past about trying to get not-intended-for-public-use functions out of the standard search path. Not that you want to put a full visibility check into the tab-completion query, but if

Re: [HACKERS] patch: autocomplete for functions

2012-03-19 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On fre, 2012-03-16 at 13:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: I'm a bit concerned about whether that's actually going to be useful. A quick check shows that in the regression database, the proposed patch produces 3246 possible completions, which suggests that by the time you get down to a unique match

Re: [HACKERS] patch: autocomplete for functions

2012-03-19 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: On fre, 2012-03-16 at 13:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: I'm a bit concerned about whether that's actually going to be useful. A quick check shows that in the regression database, the proposed patch produces 3246 possible completions, which suggests that by

Re: [HACKERS] patch: autocomplete for functions

2012-03-19 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun mar 19 16:53:49 -0300 2012: This connects somewhat to the discussions we've had in the past about trying to get not-intended-for-public-use functions out of the standard search path. Not that you want to put a full visibility check into the

Re: [HACKERS] patch: autocomplete for functions

2012-03-16 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On tor, 2012-03-15 at 16:36 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of jue mar 15 16:25:53 -0300 2012: On sön, 2012-02-19 at 20:10 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: I found so this extremely simple patch should be useful. It helps for pattern SELECT fx();

Re: [HACKERS] patch: autocomplete for functions

2012-03-16 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: On tor, 2012-03-15 at 16:36 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of jue mar 15 16:25:53 -0300 2012: Isn't that just a subset of what I had proposed?

Re: [HACKERS] patch: autocomplete for functions

2012-03-15 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On sön, 2012-02-19 at 20:10 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: I found so this extremely simple patch should be useful. It helps for pattern SELECT fx(); Isn't that just a subset of what I had proposed? http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1328820579.11241.4.ca...@vanquo.pezone.net There was

Re: [HACKERS] patch: autocomplete for functions

2012-03-15 Thread Pavel Stehule
2012/3/15 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net: On sön, 2012-02-19 at 20:10 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: I found so this extremely simple patch should be useful. It helps for pattern SELECT fx(); Isn't that just a subset of what I had proposed?

Re: [HACKERS] patch: autocomplete for functions

2012-03-15 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of jue mar 15 16:25:53 -0300 2012: On sön, 2012-02-19 at 20:10 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: I found so this extremely simple patch should be useful. It helps for pattern SELECT fx(); Isn't that just a subset of what I had proposed?