Re: Tab-comletion for RLS

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:07 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I found some lacks of tab-completion for RLS in 9.5.
>>>
>>> * ALTER POLICY [TAB]
>>> I expected to appear the list of policy name, but nothing is appeared.
>>>
>>> * ALTER POLICY hoge_policy ON [TAB]
>>> I expected to appear the list of table name related to specified policy, but
>>> all table names are appeared.
>>>
>>> * ALTER POLICY ... ON ... TO [TAB]
>>> I expected to appear { role_name | PUBLIC | CURRENT_USER | SESSION_USER },
>>> but only role_name and PUBLIC are appeared.
>>> Same problem is exists in
>>> "
>>> CREATE POLICY ... ON ... TO [TAB]
>>> "
>>> .
>>>
>>> #1 and #2 problems are exist in 9.5 or later, but #3 is exist in only 9.5
>>> because it's unintentionally fixed by
>>> 2f8880704a697312d8d10ab3a2ad7ffe4b5e3dfd commit.
>>> I think we should apply the necessary part of this commit for 9.5 as well,
>>> though?
>>>
>>> Attached patches are:
>>> * 000_fix_tab_completion_rls.patch
>>> fixes #1, #2 problem, and is for master branch and REL9_5_STABLE.
>>> * 001_fix_tab_completion_rls_for_95.patch
>>> fixes #3 problem, and is for only REL9_5_STABLE.
>>
>> I've committed 000 and back-patched it to 9.5. I'm not quite sure
>> what to do about 001; maybe it's better to back-port the whole commit
>> rather than just bits of it.
>
> Yes, I agree with back-port the whole commit.

On further review, this doesn't really seem like a sufficiently
critical issue to justify back-porting that commit. I won't make a
stink if some other committer wants to push that commit into 9.5, but
I don't want to do it myself and then be left holding the bag if it
breaks something. We're generally pretty lenient about pushing tab
completion patches into the tree even well after feature freeze, but
post-rc1 is a little more than I want to be on the hook for. This is
clearly not a bug; it's just a feature that you'd like to have. And
9.6 will have it.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company