Re: [PATCH] psql: Add tab-complete for optional view parameters

Hi all,
sorry for the long delay.

On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 04:32:09PM +0100, Jim Jones wrote:
> However, an "ALTER TABLE <name> S<tab>" does not complete the open
> parenthesis "(" from "SET (", as suggested in "ALTER VIEW <name> <tab>".
>
> postgres=# ALTER VIEW w SET
> Display all 187 possibilities? (y or n)
>
> Is it intended to behave like this? If so, an "ALTER VIEW <name>
> RES<tab>" does complete the open parenthesis -> "RESET (".

On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 10:19:12AM +0000, Mikhail Gribkov wrote:
> The patch have a potential, although I have to agree with Jim Jones,
> it obviously have a problem with "alter view <name> set<tab>"
> handling.
> [..]
> I think it may worth looking at "alter materialized view" completion
> tree and making "alter view" the same way.

Thank you both for reviewing/testing and the suggestions. Yeah,
definitively, sounds very sensible.

I've attached a new revision, rebased and addressing the above by
aligning it with how "ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW" works, such that "SET ("
and "SET SCHEMA" won't compete anymore. So that should now work more
like expected.

postgres=# ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW m
ALTER COLUMN CLUSTER ON DEPENDS ON EXTENSION
NO DEPENDS ON EXTENSION OWNER TO RENAME
RESET ( SET

postgres=# ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW m SET
( ACCESS METHOD SCHEMA TABLESPACE
WITHOUT CLUSTER

postgres=# ALTER VIEW v
ALTER COLUMN OWNER TO RENAME RESET ( SET

postgres=# ALTER VIEW v SET
( SCHEMA

postgres=# ALTER VIEW v SET (
CHECK_OPTION SECURITY_BARRIER SECURITY_INVOKER

On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 12:18:44PM +0000, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> Hmm, I don't think we should be offering "check_option" as a tab
> completion for CREATE VIEW at all, since that would encourage users to
> use non-SQL-standard syntax, rather than CREATE VIEW ... WITH
> [CASCADED|LOCAL] CHECK OPTION.

Left that part in for now. I would argue that it is a well-documented
combination and as such users would expect it to turn up in the
tab-complete as well. OTOH not against removing it either, if there are
others voicing the same opinion ..

Thanks,
Christoph