Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ci9z6-00006Q-CK for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 01:20:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ci9z5-00011F-Na for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 01:20:15 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ci9z4-0000ym-Ns for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 01:20:14 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ci9z2-0004pk-CH for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 01:20:14 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v1R1K90Z001604; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 20:20:09 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Michael Paquier cc: Robert Haas , Pavel Stehule , Kyotaro HORIGUCHI , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: IF (NOT) EXISTS in psql-completion In-reply-to: References: <20170203.171712.150614683.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> <20170214.195152.59283261.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> <19657.1488140516@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1322.1488157943@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier message dated "Mon, 27 Feb 2017 10:16:34 +0900" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1602.1488158409.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 20:20:09 -0500 Message-ID: <1603.1488158409@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Michael Paquier writes: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Tom Lane 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? 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