From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Some bugs in psql_complete of psql |
Date: | 2015-12-04 13:39:08 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwGB91SNyZWnLGEytRBx1Kbi0W2PO3NnH5QG0C2g6MmbdA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> Hello, thank you for the comments.
>
> The revised version of this patch is attached.
Thanks for updating the patch!
I tested whether the following patterns work as expected or not.
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX CONCURRENTLY name ON
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX CONCURRENTLY ON
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX name ON
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX ON
CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY name ON
CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY ON
CREATE INDEX name ON
CREATE INDEX ON
Then I found the following problems.
"CREATE UNIQUE INDEX CONCURRENTLY <tab>" didn't suggest "ON".
"CREATE UNIQUE INDEX ON <tab>" suggested nothing.
"CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY <tab>" didn't suggest "ON".
"CREATE INDEX ON <tab>" suggested nothing.
BTW, I found that tab-completion for DROP INDEX has the following problems.
"DROP INDEX <tab>" didn't suggest "CONCURRENTLY".
"DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY name <tab>" suggested nothing.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2015-12-04 13:50:09 | Re: Logical replication and multimaster |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-12-04 13:13:58 | Re: Support of partial decompression for datums |