Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Poorly named support routines for GIN tsearch index opclasses

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "Oleg Bartunov" <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, "Teodor Sigaev" <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Poorly named support routines for GIN tsearch index opclasses
Date: 2007-11-28 04:50:08
Message-ID: 19029.1196225408@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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
other opclasses.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert TreatDate: 2007-11-28 04:53:14
Subject: Re: PG 7.3 is five years old today
Previous:From: Robert TreatDate: 2007-11-28 04:44:34
Subject: Re: Poorly designed tsearch NOTICEs

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group