From: | Dawid Kuroczko <qnex42(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2005-08-14 08:24:24 |
Message-ID: | 758d5e7f050814012412495825@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 13 Aug 2005 21:42:45 -0400, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > 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.
> I'm not sure if you're interested, but my 2c speaking as a user would be for
> tab completion to include all variables. I often hit tab completion in new
> programs just to find out what's out there and would take something missing to
> be positive proof it didn't exist.
Oh, I usually do the same thing. I guess my approach could summarized as:
I assume tab-completion is not too smart -- it just completes one of valid
values. And at the times where tab-completion is smart, it is smart and
configurable -- as ZSH tab-completion. And were PostgreSQL's tab-completion
go "the smart way" I would be for adding a GUC which allowed to fine-grain
what it actually gives (all variables, settable variables, 'vacuum%'
and 'enable%'
variables, etc. ;))).
Regards,
Dawid
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2005-08-14 10:59:45 | Re: SPARQL |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-08-14 04:47:24 | pg_stat_file() and length/size |