Re: Naming of new tsvector functions

Stas Kelvich <s(dot)kelvich(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
>> On 04 May 2016, at 16:58, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> The other ones are not so problematic because they do not conflict with
>> SQL keywords. It's only delete() and filter() that scare me.

> Okay, so changed functions to ts_setweight, ts_delete, ts_unnest, ts_filter.

Somehow, I don't think you read what I wrote.

Renaming the pre-existing setweight() function to ts_setweight() is
not going to happen; it's been like that for half a dozen years now.
It would make no sense to call the new variant ts_setweight() while
keeping setweight() for the existing function, either.

I also don't see that much point in ts_unnest(), since unnest()
in our implementation is a function not a keyword. I don't have
a strong opinion about that one, though.

Also, I'd supposed that we'd rename to tsvector_something, since
the same patch also introduced tsvector_to_array() and
array_to_tsvector(). What's the motivation for using ts_ as the
prefix?

regards, tom lane