Re: Should phraseto_tsquery('simple', 'blue blue') @@ to_tsvector('simple', 'blue') be true ?

From: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
To: Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>
Cc: Jean-Pierre Pelletier <jppelletier(at)e-djuster(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Should phraseto_tsquery('simple', 'blue blue') @@ to_tsvector('simple', 'blue') be true ?
Date: 2016-06-15 06:54:33
Message-ID: 20160615065405.GB1043055@tornado.leadboat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:44:06PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 03:10:40AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 06:05:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Jean-Pierre Pelletier <jppelletier(at)e-djuster(dot)com> writes:
> > > > I wanted to test if phraseto_tsquery(), new with 9.6 could be used for
> > > > matching consecutive words but it won't work for us if it cannot handle
> > > > consecutive *duplicate* words.
> > >
> > > > For example, the following returns true: select
> > > > phraseto_tsquery('simple', 'blue blue') @@ to_tsvector('simple', 'blue');
> > >
> > > > Is this expected ?
> > >
> > > I concur that that seems like a rather useless behavior. If we have
> > > "x <-> y" it is not possible to match at distance zero, while if we
> > > have "x <-> x" it seems unlikely that the user is expecting us to
> > > treat that identically to "x". So phrase search simply should not
> > > consider distance-zero matches.
> >
> > [Action required within 72 hours. This is a generic notification.]
> >
> > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item. Teodor,
> > since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
> > item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
> > 9.6 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on
> > open item ownership[1] and send a status update within 72 hours of this
> > message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may
> > discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
> > well in advance of shipping 9.6rc1. Consequently, I will appreciate your
> > efforts toward speedy resolution. Thanks.
> >
> > [1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160527025039.GA447393@tornado.leadboat.com
>
> This PostgreSQL 9.6 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send
> a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status
> update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160527025039.GA447393@tornado.leadboat.com

IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED. This PostgreSQL 9.6 open item is long past due
for your status update. Please reacquaint yourself with the policy on open
item ownership[1] and then reply immediately. If I do not hear from you by
2016-06-16 07:00 UTC, I will transfer this item to release management team
ownership without further notice.

[1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160527025039.GA447393@tornado.leadboat.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2016-06-15 07:00:44 Re: parallel.c is not marked as test covered
Previous Message Andreas Seltenreich 2016-06-15 06:44:17 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Don't generate parallel paths for rels with parallel-restricted