Re: [PATCH] Feature improvement for CLOSE, FETCH, MOVE tab completion - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Fujii Masao
Subject Re: [PATCH] Feature improvement for CLOSE, FETCH, MOVE tab completion
Date
Msg-id CAHGQGwFPJOT5164fTSDWQ-WOAqaLqS39Y+ri0eRk_H_OxJnkVA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Feature improvement for CLOSE, FETCH, MOVE tab completion  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Feature improvement for CLOSE, FETCH, MOVE tab completion  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 10:00 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 11:00 PM Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2021-01-05 10:56, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > BTW according to the documentation, the options of DECLARE statement
> > > (BINARY, INSENSITIVE, SCROLL, and NO SCROLL) are order-sensitive.
> > >
> > > DECLARE name [ BINARY ] [ INSENSITIVE ] [ [ NO ] SCROLL ]
> > >      CURSOR [ { WITH | WITHOUT } HOLD ] FOR query
> > >
> > > But I realized that these options are actually order-insensitive. For
> > > instance, we can declare a cursor like:
> > >
> > > =# declare abc scroll binary cursor for select * from pg_class;
> > > DECLARE CURSOR
> > >
> > > The both parser code and documentation has been unchanged from 2003.
> > > Is it a documentation bug?
> >
> > According to the SQL standard, the ordering of the cursor properties is
> > fixed.  Even if the PostgreSQL parser offers more flexibility, I think
> > we should continue to encourage writing the clauses in the standard order.
>
> Thanks for your comment. Agreed.
>
> So regarding the tab completion for DECLARE statement, perhaps it
> would be better to follow the documentation?

IMO yes because it's less confusing to make the document and
tab-completion consistent.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: POC: postgres_fdw insert batching
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Key management with tests