On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 12:24, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2020/07/30 10:46, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 08:44:26AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> Isn't it better to add the comment explaining why toast tables are
> >> excluded from the tab completion for vacuum while they are vacuumable?
> >
> > Sounds sensible, still it does not apply only to vacuum. I would go
> > as far as just adding a comment at the beginning of the block for
> > schema queries:
>
> Yes, that seems better.
Agreed.
> BTW, one thing I think a bit strange is that indexes for toast tables
> are included in tab-completion for REINDEX, for example. That is,
> "REINDEX INDEX<tab>" displays "pg_toast.", and "REINDEX INDEX pg_toast.<tab>"
> displays indexes for toast tables. Maybe it's better to exclude them,
> too. But there seems no simple way to do that.
> So I'm ok with this current situation.
Yeah, that's the reason why I mentioned about toast tables. "VACUUM
<tab>" displays "pg_toast." but, "VACUUM pg_to<tab>" doesn't
complement anything.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services