On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:53:17PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Kyotaro HORIGUCHI (horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote: > > 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. > > I don't buy any of these arguments either. I *really* don't want us > going down some road where we try to make sure that hitting 'tab' > never fails...
Wouldn't that just be a correct, grammar-aware implementation of tab completion? Why wouldn't you want that? Best, David. -- David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
