| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
|---|
| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, cb(at)df7cb(dot)de |
| Subject: | review: tab completion for set search_path TO |
| Date: | 2014-06-21 17:22:31 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRD9g7BkyiDHT5j_-2uSJ_Gro3Y2qj110R0SNL9-fB4QOA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello,
this patch https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1443 is
trivial with zero risk.
Patch is applicable without any issues, compilation was without any issues
too.
Only one open question is there - should by system schemas visible for
autocompleation or not.
There was not 100% agreement in related discussion. I am inclined to think
so preferable variant is without system schemas - they are used implicitly
and has no sense use it on first position. But on second hand this detail
is not significant and it is hard to get some objective arguments for one
or second variant. Next, this behave can be simply changed without any
impacts if we don't choose well now - so I would to mark this patch as
ready for commit.
Regards
Pavel
| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, cb(at)df7cb(dot)de |
| Subject: | Re: review: tab completion for set search_path TO |
| Date: | 2014-06-23 05:39:30 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQSvDNt2_oMV_nLmVfg8bicYt+Y-hEvN=im2ULiTEF6AQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 2:22 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> this patch https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1443 is
> trivial with zero risk.
>
> Patch is applicable without any issues, compilation was without any issues
> too.
>
Just wondering: why creating a new thread for a review and not reply
directly reply to the exiting one? This makes the review/patch submission
flow rather complicated to follow.
--
Michael
| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | cb(at)df7cb(dot)de, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: review: tab completion for set search_path TO |
| Date: | 2014-06-23 06:26:32 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRAdOO7onxVeFrLkTshX9=1ke6JUDare1b+FuTRrghrbOw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello
I am sorry, I expected so review shold to start with new thread. I was
wrong, so next reviews I will use e existing threads
Regards
pavel
Dne 23. 6. 2014 7:39 "Michael Paquier" <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
napsal(a):
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 2:22 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> this patch https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1443
>> is trivial with zero risk.
>>
>> Patch is applicable without any issues, compilation was without any
>> issues too.
>>
> Just wondering: why creating a new thread for a review and not reply
> directly reply to the exiting one? This makes the review/patch submission
> flow rather complicated to follow.
> --
> Michael
>