From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Stas Kelvich <s(dot)kelvich(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Naming of new tsvector functions |
Date: | 2016-05-05 19:44:36 |
Message-ID: | 10331.1462477476@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stas Kelvich <s(dot)kelvich(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
>> On 04 May 2016, at 20:15, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> 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?
> There is already several functions named ts_* (ts_rank, ts_headline, ts_rewrite)
> and two named starting from tsvector_* (tsvector_update_trigger, tsvector_update_trigger_column).
> Personally Id prefer ts_ over tsvector_ since it is shorter, and still keeps semantics.
Yeah, I see we're already a bit inconsistent here. The problem with using
a ts_ prefix, to my mind, is that it offers no option for distinguishing
tsvector from tsquery, should you need to do that. Maybe this isn't a
problem for functions that have tsvector as input.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-05 19:56:45 | Re: quickdie doing memory allocations (was atomic pin/unpin causing errors) |
Previous Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2016-05-05 19:17:42 | Re: atomic pin/unpin causing errors |