Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Thomas Munro > <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> (Apologies for sending so many versions. tab-complete.c keeps moving >> and I want to keep a version that applies on top of master out there, >> for anyone interested in looking at this. As long as no one objects >> and there is interest in the patch, I'll keep doing that.)
> I don't want to rain on the parade since other people seem to like > this, but I'm sort of unimpressed by this. Yes, it removes >1000 > lines of code, and that's not nothing. But it's all mechanical code, > so, not to be dismissive, but who really cares? Is it really worth > replacing the existing notation that we all know with a new one that > we have to learn? I'm not violently opposed if someone else wants to > commit this, but I'm unexcited about it. What I would like is to find a way to auto-generate basically this entire file from gram.y. That would imply going over to something at least somewhat parser-based, instead of the current way that is more or less totally ad-hoc. That would be a very good thing though, because the current way gives wrong answers not-infrequently, even discounting cases that it's simply not been taught about. I have no very good idea how to do that, though. Bison does have a notion of which symbols are possible as the next symbol at any given parse point, but it doesn't really make that accessible. There's a lack of cooperation on the readline side too: we'd need to be able to see the whole query buffer not just the current line. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers