Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 19:49:22 +0200
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>, 
	Dmitry Koval <d.koval@postgrespro.ru>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, 
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Add SPLIT PARTITION/MERGE PARTITIONS commands
Message-ID: <202404181749.2jibl7x2ao5n@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <5dee3937-8e9f-cca4-11fb-737709a92b37@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202404181749.2jibl7x2ao5n%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2024-Apr-18, Alexander Lakhin wrote:

> I think the feature implementation should also provide tab completion
> for SPLIT/MERGE.

I don't think that we should be imposing on feature authors or
committers the task of filling in tab-completion for whatever features
they contribute.  I mean, if they want to add that, cool; but if not,
somebody else can do that, too.  It's not a critical piece.

Now, if we're talking about whether a patch to add tab-completion to a
feature post feature-freeze is acceptable, I think it absolutely is
(even though you could claim that it's a new psql feature).  But for
sure we shouldn't mandate that a feature be reverted just because it
lacks tab-completion -- such lack is not an open-item against the
feature in that sense.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera        Breisgau, Deutschland  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"That sort of implies that there are Emacs keystrokes which aren't obscure.
I've been using it daily for 2 years now and have yet to discover any key
sequence which makes any sense."                        (Paul Thomas)