From: | Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
Subject: | Re: tsearch in core patch, for inclusion |
Date: | 2007-02-22 12:45:13 |
Message-ID: | 45DD9059.2050803@bluegap.ch |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Hi,
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Oleg Bartunov wrote:
>> It's not so big addition to the gram.y, see a list of commands
>> http://mira.sai.msu.su/~megera/pgsql/ftsdoc/sql-commands.html.
As we still to still discuss the syntax: is there a proposal for how a
function based syntax would look like?
CREATE FULLTEXT CONFIGURATION myfts LIKE template_cfg AS DEFAULT;
just seems so much more SQL-like than:
SELECT add_fulltext_config('myfts', 'template_cfg', True);
I admit, that's a very simple and not thought through example. But as
long as those who prefer not to extend the grammar don't come up with a
better alternative syntax, one easily gets the impression that extending
the grammar in general is evil.
> In that proposed syntax, I would drop all "=", ",", "(", and ")". They
> don't seem necessary and they are untypical for SQL commands. I'd
> compare with CREATE FUNCTION or CREATE SEQUENCE for SQL commands that
> do similar things.
Yup, I'd second that.
Regards
Markus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-02-22 12:47:42 | Grouped Index Tuples |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-02-22 12:26:07 | Re: SCMS question |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2007-02-22 12:56:39 | Re: First implementation of GIN for pg_trgm |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-02-22 10:59:13 | Re: [previously on HACKERS] "Compacting" a relation |