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

Re: Poorly named support routines for GIN tsearch index opclasses

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 01:03:18
Message-ID: 87d4tv9o6h.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"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 use of "internal" arguments has always been the part of GIN/GIST which
bothered me the most. Most of those instances are actually quite necessary but
if there are some that aren't I'm all for removing them.

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?

-- 
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com
  Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production Tuning

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2007-11-28 01:28:11
Subject: Re: Time to update list of contributors
Previous:From: Kris JurkaDate: 2007-11-28 00:52:39
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Time to update list of contributors

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