| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: tsearch in core patch, for inclusion |
| Date: | 2007-01-24 19:57:01 |
| Message-ID: | 1169668621.5480.73.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 13:49 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> 2) once we put this in core we are going to be stuck with supporting its
> SQL API forever. Are we convinced that this API is the one we want?
> I don't recall even having seen any proposal or discussion.
There has been some prior discussion:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-12/msg00919.php
But I agree that we need considerably more discussion before committing
the patch. I'm personally not sold on the need for modifications to the
SQL grammar, for example, as opposed to just using a set of SQL-callable
functions and some new system catalogs.
Another question that would be easier to resolve before the patch is
committed is naming: the patch currently uses a mix of "full text" and
"tsearch[2]" as the name of the full-text search feature. If we're going
to bless this as "the" integrated full-text search in PG, it might make
more sense to use "full text search" and "FTS" exclusively.
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-01-24 19:58:35 | Re: tsearch in core patch, for inclusion |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-01-24 19:40:48 | Re: tsearch in core patch, for inclusion |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-01-24 19:58:35 | Re: tsearch in core patch, for inclusion |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-01-24 19:40:48 | Re: tsearch in core patch, for inclusion |