From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dmitry Koval <d(dot)koval(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add SPLIT PARTITION/MERGE PARTITIONS commands |
Date: | 2024-04-18 17:49:22 |
Message-ID: | 202404181749.2jibl7x2ao5n@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2024-Apr-18, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> I think the feature implementation should also provide tab completion
> for SPLIT/MERGE.
I don't think that we should be imposing on feature authors or
committers the task of filling in tab-completion for whatever features
they contribute. I mean, if they want to add that, cool; but if not,
somebody else can do that, too. It's not a critical piece.
Now, if we're talking about whether a patch to add tab-completion to a
feature post feature-freeze is acceptable, I think it absolutely is
(even though you could claim that it's a new psql feature). But for
sure we shouldn't mandate that a feature be reverted just because it
lacks tab-completion -- such lack is not an open-item against the
feature in that sense.
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"That sort of implies that there are Emacs keystrokes which aren't obscure.
I've been using it daily for 2 years now and have yet to discover any key
sequence which makes any sense." (Paul Thomas)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Corey Huinker | 2024-04-18 17:51:10 | Re: documentation structure |
Previous Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2024-04-18 17:49:13 | Re: Transparent column encryption |