From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: tab complete for COPY populated materialized view TO |
Date: | 2025-04-09 09:45:08 |
Message-ID: | 433a4165-7091-4afc-bcb9-1c1f7a5af5e0@oss.nttdata.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2025/04/09 18:25, Kirill Reshke wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 at 13:23, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)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 we aim to support tab-completion for all valid targets of both COPY TO
and COPY FROM, shouldn't foreign tables also be included? And what about
views with INSTEAD OF INSERT triggers - though maybe that's overkill?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jakub Wartak | 2025-04-09 09:53:59 | Re: Draft for basic NUMA observability |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2025-04-09 09:39:49 | Re: pgsql: Make cancel request keys longer |