Thread: autocomplete - SELECT fx
Hello I tested Peter's patch and it works well. I don't see any performance problem on my notebook last discussion http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CAK3UJRHXgnChP9J5RuOEMEtFB0E9awPhNOV=RQuPwK6VX-ZaPA@mail.gmail.com so we can do more - we can join this completation with "," too - but it can add false compleations inside FROM clause. Probably we are near of end of enhancing completation - for doing usable completation we need syntax analysing :( Regards Pavel Stehule
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote: > I tested Peter's patch and it works well. I liked it as well. But I'm not sure what should happen with the patch now. It seems like it'd be commit-ready with just a tweak or two to the query as I noted in my last mail, but Tom did seem opposed[1] to the idea in the first thread, and no one else has spoken up recently in favor of the idea, so maybe it should just be marked Rejected or Returned with Feedback? Josh [1] http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/13612.1328887227%40sss.pgh.pa.us
2012/7/6 Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy@gmail.com>: > On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I tested Peter's patch and it works well. > > I liked it as well. But I'm not sure what should happen with the patch > now. It seems like it'd be commit-ready with just a tweak or two to > the query as I noted in my last mail, but Tom did seem opposed[1] to > the idea in the first thread, and no one else has spoken up recently > in favor of the idea, so maybe it should just be marked Rejected or > Returned with Feedback? Hard to say - it is usable, but on second hand - some user can be surprised, because it works only for first item in list. Regards Pavel > > Josh > > [1] http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/13612.1328887227%40sss.pgh.pa.us
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 06:43:09PM -0700, Josh Kupershmidt wrote: > On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I tested Peter's patch and it works well. > > I liked it as well. But I'm not sure what should happen with the patch > now. It seems like it'd be commit-ready with just a tweak or two to > the query as I noted in my last mail, but Tom did seem opposed[1] to > the idea in the first thread, and no one else has spoken up recently > in favor of the idea, so maybe it should just be marked Rejected or > Returned with Feedback? I like the patch, as far as it goes. It's the natural addition to the completions we already offer; compare the simplistic completion after WHERE. Like Pavel and Robert, I think a delightful implementation of tab completion for SELECT statements would require radical change. Thanks, nm
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote: > I like the patch, as far as it goes. It's the natural addition to the > completions we already offer; compare the simplistic completion after WHERE. > Like Pavel and Robert, I think a delightful implementation of tab completion > for SELECT statements would require radical change. Thanks for the feedback, Noah. Peter, are you interested in posting an updated version of your patch? (The only problems I remember are checking attisdropped and function visibility.) Josh
On tis, 2012-07-10 at 07:29 -0700, Josh Kupershmidt wrote: > On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote: > > I like the patch, as far as it goes. It's the natural addition to the > > completions we already offer; compare the simplistic completion after WHERE. > > Like Pavel and Robert, I think a delightful implementation of tab completion > > for SELECT statements would require radical change. > > Thanks for the feedback, Noah. Peter, are you interested in posting an > updated version of your patch? (The only problems I remember are > checking attisdropped and function visibility.) Another problem was exluding functions that are not useful to call directory, such as functions that used for type or operator definitions. There is no simple solution for that.