At Mon, 27 Feb 2017 10:43:39 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote in <cab7npqqr7apg8w+p41w1aztjy7lsassevwvkeptu4knnxwc...@mail.gmail.com> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >>> BTW ... can anyone explain to me the reason why we offer to complete > >>> CREATE OBJECT with the names of existing objects of that kind? > > > >> Isn't that to facilitate commands appended after CREATE SCHEMA? Say > >> table foo is in schema1, and creating it in schema2 gets easier with > >> tab completion? > > > > Seems like pretty much of a stretch. I've never done anything like > > that, have you? > > Never, but that was the only reason I could think about. I recall > reading something else on -hackers but I cannot put my finger on it, > nor does a lookup at the archives help... Perhaps that's the one I > just mentioned as well.
I suppose it is for suggesting what kind of word should come there, or avoiding silence for a tab. Or for symmetry with other types of manipulation, like DROP. Another possibility is creating multiple objects with similar names, say CREATE TABLE employee_x1, CREATE TABLE employee_x2. Just trying to complete existing *schema* is one more another possible objective. regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
