> On Sep 18, 2026, at 16:01, Kirill Reshke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> HI!
>
> I noticed an issue on tab completion with LARGE OBJECT support. I am
> aware that tab complete support need not to be always-correct, but
> this cases are simple, so decided to fix.
>
> The psql tab completion for COMMENT ON and SECURITY LABEL ON suggests
> "IS" immediately after "LARGE OBJECT", this produces invalid SQL:
>
> =# COMMENT ON LARGE OBJECT <TAB>
> -- now COMMENT ON LARGE OBJECT IS
>
> The same bug exists for SECURITY LABEL. SEC LABEL also missed EVENT
> TRIGGER/ FOREIGN TABLE/MATERIALIZED VIEW cases.
>
> Same bug was fixed for GRANT/REVOKE in ff0bcb248e6.
>
>
>
> Quick sum up:
> Before:
> COMMENT ON LARGE OBJECT <TAB> → IS (invalid SQL)
> SECURITY LABEL ON LARGE OBJECT <TAB> → IS (invalid SQL)
> SECURITY LABEL ON EVENT TRIGGER <TAB> → IS (invalid SQL)
> SECURITY LABEL ON FOREIGN TABLE <TAB> → IS (invalid SQL)
> SECURITY LABEL ON MATERIALIZED VIEW <TAB> → IS (invalid SQL)
>
> After:
> COMMENT ON LARGE OBJECT <TAB> → OID list (correct)
> SECURITY LABEL ON LARGE OBJECT <TAB> → OID list (correct)
> SECURITY LABEL ON EVENT TRIGGER <TAB> → trigger name list (correct)
> SECURITY LABEL ON FOREIGN TABLE <TAB> → foreign table list (correct)
> SECURITY LABEL ON MATERIALIZED VIEW <TAB> → matview list (correct)
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Kirill Reshke
> <v1-0001-psql-Fix-tab-completion-for-COMMENT-SECURITY-LABE.patch>
Do we also need to support SECURITY LABEL FOR provider ON LARGE OBJECT …?
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
