From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: tsearch_core patch: permissions and security issues |
Date: | 2007-06-15 15:39:36 |
Message-ID: | 1181921976.17734.14.camel@silverbirch.site |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 10:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Although I'm happy to see tsearch finally hit the big time, I'm a bit
> > disappointed to see so many new datatype-specific SQL commands created.
>
> Per subsequent discussion we are down to just one new set of commands,
> CREATE/ALTER/DROP TEXT SEARCH CONFIGURATION, so it's not as big a
> footprint as it was to start with.
Thats a lot better, thanks. I'm sure that will work better in PgAdmin
and many other places too.
> I have been thinking that it would be smart to try to use the generic
> "definition list" syntax, like CREATE OPERATOR and CREATE AGGREGATE.
> But the motivation for that is just to avoid defining more keywords
> (which has an overall impact on parser size and performance). It's
> not really going to do anything for us in terms of having an
> implementation that can be shared with anything else.
It's OK; ALTER RFID TAG NOMENCLATURE has a nice ring to it. :-)
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | nhrcommu | 2007-06-15 15:49:08 | Re: The Business Case for PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-15 15:39:20 | Re: How does the tsearch configuration get selected? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-06-15 15:57:05 | Re: How does the tsearch configuration get selected? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-15 15:39:20 | Re: How does the tsearch configuration get selected? |