Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Another possibility would be to change the declared signatures to show
>> "tsquery" rather than "internal" at the places where a tsquery argument
>> is expected. I'm less excited about that part though.
> The only thing is that this has a semantic effect. It means users will
> be able to call these functions from SQL directly. Are they safe to
> allow this? Is this useful?
No, no, and no, because there will still be at least one "internal"
argument. I'm just suggesting that the argument positions that do
correspond to ordinary SQL types should be declared that way, as an
extra way of distinguishing these support functions from others for
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Treat||Date: 2007-11-28 04:53:14|
|Subject: Re: PG 7.3 is five years old today|
|Previous:||From: Robert Treat||Date: 2007-11-28 04:44:34|
|Subject: Re: Poorly designed tsearch NOTICEs|