Hi
We already have
\ef
\ev
The use case here is simply that it saves me from:
\d <table>
[scroll through all the fields]
[often scroll right]
select function name
\ef [paste function name]
and tab completion is much narrower
When doing conversions and reviews all of this stuff has to be reviewed.
Oftentimes, renamed, touched.
I am 100% willing to write the code, docs, etc. but would appreciate feedback.
\et can be little bit confusing, because looks like editing trigger, not trigger function
what \eft triggername
?
Pavel, I am "torn" because of my OCD, I would expect
\eft <TAB>
to list functions that RETURN TRIGGER as opposed to the level of indirection I was aiming for.
where
\et <TAB>
Would specifically let me complete the Trigger_Name, but find the function
It makes me wonder, now if:
\etf
Is better for this (edit trigger function... given the trigger name).
And as another poster suggested. As we do the AUTOCOMPLETE for that, we could address it for:
\ef?
because:
\eft <TAB>
is valuable as well, and deserves to work just like all \ef? items
It seems like a logical way to break it down.
This is a problem, and it isn't easy to find a design that is consistent and useful. Maybe Tom's proposal "\st" is best, although the "t" can be messy - it can be "t" like table or "t" like trigger or "t" like type.
Personally, I don't like editing DDL in psql or pgAdmin. In all my training I say "don't do it". But on second hand, I agree so it can be handy for prototyping or for some playing.
I think implementing "\st triggername" can be a good start, and then we can continue in design later.
My comments:
* Maybe "\str" can be better than only "\st". Only "\st" can be confusing - minimally we use "t" like symbol for tables
* I think so arguments can be - tablename, triggername or [tablename triggername]
It can display more triggers than just one when specification is general or result is not uniq
Regards
Pavel