On Thursday, April 10, 2025, Kirill Reshke <
reshkekirill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 at 20:07, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2025/04/09 19:24, Kirill Reshke wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 at 14:45, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2025/04/09 18:25, Kirill Reshke wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 at 13:23, jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> hi.
> >>>>
> >>>> we allow the "COPY table TO" command to copy rows from materialized
> >>>> views in [1].
> >>>> The attached patch is to add a tab complete for it.
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] https://git.postgresql.org/cgit/postgresql.git/commit/?id=534874fac0b34535c9a5ab9257d6574f78423578
> >>>
> >>> Hi!
> >>> Patch works good for me, but I noticed that psql COPY <tab> suggests
> >>> partitioned relation both with and without this patch. Maybe that's
> >>> not a big problem, if [0] will be pushed.
> >>
> >> Is the partitioned table currently tab-completed for the COPY FROM case?
> >
> > If I'm not mistaken, yes. I double checked.
> >
> >> INSTEAD OF INSERT triggers - though maybe that's overkill?
> >
> > That's wild to me, psql tab completions feature designed to support
> > postgresql not fully, but in frequent cases. So maybe we should keep
> > it stupud.
>
> I agree that it's reasonable to exclude such rarely used objects from
> tab-completion. How about including just tables, partitioned tables,
> foreign tables, and materialized views?
> I've attached a patch for that.
>
> Regards,
Patch is ok. However...
I concur with the premise of the patch. Tab-complete is going to happen before we know whether to/from is specified so the syntax limits our smarts here.
> If we aim to support tab-completion for all valid targets of both COPY TO
and COPY FROM, shouldn't foreign tables also be included?
Ah.. Sorry I missed this part of your message initially. No, foreign
tables are not supported:
They are supported for the From variant; valid completions need only satisfy one of to/from, not both.
What's funny is that copying foreign tables using MV works fine
```
reshke=# create materialized view mv as table ft;
SELECT 1
reshke=# copy mv to stdout;
228
```
I don’t get why this is “funny” or otherwise surprising.
David J.
