David Fetter wrote:
> That we're in the position of having prevN_wd for N = 1..5 as the
> current code exists is a sign that we need to refactor the whole
> thing, as you've suggested before.
>
> I'll work up a design and prototype for this by this weekend.
>
Great. I don't think issues around tab completion are enough to block
the next alpha though, and it sounds like the next stage of this needs
to gel a bit more before it will be ready to commit anyway. I'm going
to mark the remaining bits here as returned for now, and trust that
you'll continue chugging away on this so we can get it into the next CF
early.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support www.2ndQuadrant.us
"PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance": http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books