On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 08:02:52PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I have been looking at 0001 as a start, and your patch is incorrect on
> a couple of aspects for the completion of REINDEX:
> - "(" is not proposed as a completion option after the initial
> REINDEX, and I think that it should.That part of your patch handles REINDEX and REINDEX(*) differently than mine. Yours is technically more correct/complete. But, I recall Tom objected a different patch because of completing to a single char. I think the case is arguable either way: if only some completions are shown, then it hides the others.. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/14255.1536781...@sss.pgh.pa.us - else if (Matches("REINDEX") || Matches("REINDEX", "(*)")) + else if (Matches("REINDEX")) + COMPLETE_WITH("TABLE", "INDEX", "SYSTEM", "SCHEMA", "DATABASE", "("); + else if (Matches("REINDEX", "(*)")) COMPLETE_WITH("TABLE", "INDEX", "SYSTEM", "SCHEMA", "DATABASE"); > - completion gets incorrect for all the commands once a parenthesized > list of options is present, as CONCURRENTLY goes missing. The rest of your patch looks fine. In my mind, REINDEX(CONCURRENTLY) was the "new way" to write things, and it's what's easy to support, so I think I didn't put special effort into making tab completion itself complete. -- Justin
