On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 6:24 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 1. I think it would be a good idea to convert the matching rules for > backslash commands too. To do that, we'd need to provide a case-sensitive > equivalent to word_match and the matching macros. I think we'd also have > to extend word_match to allow a trailing wildcard character, maybe "*". > > 2. I believe that a very large fraction of the TailMatches() rules really > ought to be Matches(), ie, they should not consider matches that don't > start at the start of the line. And there's another bunch that could > be Matches() if the author hadn't been unaccountably lazy about checking > all words of the expected command. If we converted as much as we could > that way, it would make psql_completion faster because many inapplicable > rules could be discarded after a single integer comparison on > previous_words_count, and it would greatly reduce the risk of inapplicable > matches. We can't do that for rules meant to apply to DML statements, > since they can be buried in WITH, EXPLAIN, etc ... but an awful lot of > the DDL rules could be changed. > > 3. The HeadMatches macros are pretty iffy because they can only look back > nine words. I'm tempted to redesign get_previous_words so it just > tokenizes the whole line rather than having an arbitrary limitation. > (For that matter, it's long overdue for it to be able to deal with > multiline input...) > > I might go look at #3, but I can't currently summon the energy to tackle > #1 or #2 --- any volunteers?
I could have a look at both of them and submit patch for next CF, both things do not seem that much complicated. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
