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 look. This thread, and the thread about Peter's earlier patch
along the same lines have gotten a bit muddled, so allow me some recap
for my own sanity.

The first point to be addressed, is that Pavel's patch is basically a
subset of Peter's earlier[1] patch. Pavel's patch autocompletes

  SELECT TAB

with possible function names. Peter's patch autocompletes both
possible column names and possible function names. So, which version,
if any, would we want? Both Tom[2] and depesz[3] have asked for column
names to be autocompleted if we're going to go down this road, and I
personally would find completion of column names handy. Others [5][6]
have asked for function names to be (also?) autocompleted here, so it
seems reasonable that we'd want to include both.

I counted two general objections to Peter's patch in these threads, namely:

 1.) Complaints about the tab-completion not covering all cases,
possibly leading to user frustration at our inconsistency. [2] [4]
 2.) Concerns that the tab-completion wouldn't be useful given how
many results we'd have from system columns and functions [7]

I do agree these are two legitimate concerns. However, for #1, our
tab-completion is and has always been incomplete. I take the basic
goal of the tab-completion machinery to be offer a suggestion when
we're pretty sure we know what the user wants, otherwise stay quiet.
There are all sorts of places where our reliance on inspecting back
only a few words into the current line and not having a true command
parser prevents us from being able to make tab-completion guesses, but
that's been accepted so far, and I don't think it's fair to raise the
bar for this patch.

Re: concern #2, Tom complained about there being a bunch of possible
column and function completions in the regression test database. That
may be true, but if you look at this slightly-modified version of the
query Peter's patch proposes:

SELECT substring(name, 1, 3) AS sub, COUNT(*)
  FROM (
SELECT attname FROM pg_attribute WHERE NOT attisdropped
UNION
SELECT proname || '(' FROM pg_proc p WHERE
pg_catalog.pg_function_is_visible(p.oid)) t (name)
  GROUP BY sub ORDER BY COUNT(*) DESC;

I count only 384 distinct 3-length prefixes in an empty database,
thanks to many built-in columns and functions sharing the same prefix
(e.g. int or pg_). Obviously, there is plenty of room left for
3-length prefixes, out of the 27^3 or more possibilities. In some
casual mucking around in my own databases, I found the
column-completion rather useful, and typing 3 characters of a
column-name to be sufficient to give matches which were at least
non-builtin attributes, and often a single unique match.

There were some ideas down-thread about how we might filter out some
of the noise in these completions, which would be interesting. I'd be
happy with the patch as-is though, modulo the attisdropped and
pg_function_is_visible() tweaks to the query.

Josh


[1] 
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1328820579.11241.4.camel%40vanquo.pezone.net
[2] http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/7745.1328855069%40sss.pgh.pa.us
[3] http://www.depesz.com/2011/07/08/wish-list-for-psql/
[4] http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/13612.1328887227%40sss.pgh.pa.us
[5] 
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoY7wRGgBbFhKwfASqrNOPwZwCjfm1AhL82769Xx-SyduA%40mail.gmail.com
[6] 
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20120210140637.GB19783%40ldn-qws-004.delacy.com
[7] http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/9966.1331920074%40sss.pgh.pa.us

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


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 include currently-visible functions,
but *not* only columns from currently visible tables, since we won't
know yet whether the user intends to schema-qualify the table name.

  (BTW I didn't check but does this
 completion work if I schema-qualify a column name?)

Peter's proposed tab-completion only kicks in for the column-name
itself. Keep in mind, the user might be trying to enter:
  SELECT  schema.table.column ...
  SELECT  table.column ...
  SELECT  table_alias.column ...
  SELECT  column ...

and presumably want to tab-complete the second token somehow. I'm a
bit leery about trying to tab-complete those first two, and the third
is right out. Just having the fourth would make me happy.

Josh

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


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 it could simply exclude a
 pg_private namespace, that probably wouldn't be too expensive.

I wonder if this could be worked out using pg_depend.  For example, give
me all functions that are not referenced by some object in pg_catalog.


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


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 you're going to have typed most of the name
 anyway.

Well, the regression test database is not really an example of real-life
object naming, I think.  I tried this out on a couple of real databases
and found it quite handy.
 
 BTW, you should at least exclude dropped columns, I think.
 
Yes.


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


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 the time you
 get down to a unique match you're going to have typed most of the name
 anyway.

 Well, the regression test database is not really an example of real-life
 object naming, I think.

Perhaps not, but a solid 2000 of those names are from the system-created
entries in pg_proc, and the regression DB doesn't have an especially
large number of tables either.  I doubt that real DBs are likely to have
materially fewer completions.

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 it could simply exclude a pg_private
namespace, that probably wouldn't be too expensive.

regards, tom lane

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


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
 tab-completion query,

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.  (BTW I didn't check but does this
completion work if I schema-qualify a column name?)

 but if it could simply exclude a pg_private
 namespace, that probably wouldn't be too expensive.

+1

-- 
Álvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


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();
  
  Isn't that just a subset of what I had proposed?
  
  http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1328820579.11241.4.ca...@vanquo.pezone.net
 
 So do you intend to commit your patch?

Well, there was quite a bit of discussion about it, but it appears that
most concerns were addressed at the end.  So yes, I guess, unless
someone wants further discussion.


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


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?
 http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1328820579.11241.4.ca...@vanquo.pezone.net

 So do you intend to commit your patch?

 Well, there was quite a bit of discussion about it, but it appears that
 most concerns were addressed at the end.  So yes, I guess, unless
 someone wants further discussion.

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 you're going to have typed most of the name
anyway.

BTW, you should at least exclude dropped columns, I think.

regards, tom lane

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


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 thread about it.

Which thread was that?



-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


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?

 http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1328820579.11241.4.ca...@vanquo.pezone.net

 There was thread about it.

 Which thread was that?



probably yours :)

Regards

Pavel

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


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?
 
 http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1328820579.11241.4.ca...@vanquo.pezone.net

So do you intend to commit your patch?

-- 
Álvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers