From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: psql SET/RESET/SHOW tab completion |
Date: | 2005-08-22 19:55:03 |
Message-ID: | 20050822195503.GC72767@pervasive.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 11:39:59AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > I am wondering if is worth managing which items should be displayed or
> > not, and if we should just give up and display them all. The GUC system
> > is just too dynamic.
>
> Not sure. I count 98 GUC variables currently listed in tab-complete.c,
> and 162 rows in pg_settings. So listing them all would be a pretty
> sizable increase (65%) in what's already an unwieldy list. I would
> prefer to see some thought given to removing useless entries ... eg,
> I doubt anyone needs tab completion for "trace_notify" or "wal_debug".
>
> However, if you favor a "no thought required" approach, listing 'em
> all is certainly the path of least resistance. I'm just dubious that
> that maximizes the usefulness of tab completion.
What about going the route of tcsh (and I'm sure others) where ^D shows
you what your options are for tab-completion? This makes it much easier
to find the option you're looking for.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com 512-569-9461
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-08-22 19:58:15 | Re: psql SET/RESET/SHOW tab completion |
Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2005-08-22 19:29:33 | Re: Sleep functions |