| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: psql tab completion for DO blocks |
| Date: | 2010-01-03 00:47:22 |
| Message-ID: | 22465.1262479642@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On lr, 2010-01-02 at 17:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> As for the overhead, these queries are not zero-maintenance. I still
>> think that the usefulness of tab completion here is pretty darn
>> minimal,
>> since most people are more likely to rely on default_do_language;
> We really don't have any data on that, and it doesn't seem all that
> likely to me.
I'm not really objecting to putting in the patch entirely. I'm objecting
to carrying an extra completion query for it. I don't think hiding
languages with laninline=0 improves its usefulness at all, let alone
enough to justify extra maintenance burden.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-01-03 01:04:10 | Re: PATCH: Add hstore_to_json() |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-01-03 00:42:51 | Re: psql tab completion for DO blocks |