| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: syntax of operation with tsearch's configuration |
| Date: | 2006-11-17 20:12:53 |
| Message-ID: | 455E17C5.4050505@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Oleg Bartunov wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>
>
>>> I am also a bit concerned that the names of the proposed objects (parser,
>>> dictionary) don't convey their purpose adequately. Maybe TS_DICTIONARY and
>>> TS_PARSER might be better if we in fact need to name them.
>>>
>> this looks reasonable to me.
>>
>
> Huh, but we don't use keywords with ugly abbreviations and underscores.
> How about "FULLTEXT DICTIONARY" and "FULLTEXT PARSER"? (Using
> "FULLTEXT" instead of "FULL TEXT" means you don't created common
> reserved words, and furthermore you don't collide with an existing type
> name.)
>
good point. this works for me.
>
> We should also take the opportunity to discuss new keywords for the XML
> support -- will we use new grammar, or functions?
>
>
Well, it will have to be keywords if we want to be able to do anything
like the spec, IIRC.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-11-17 20:17:46 | Re: Frequent Update Project: Design Overview ofHOTUpdates |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-11-17 20:09:52 | Re: Proposal: syntax of operation with tsearch's configuration |