From: | Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 21:46:42 |
Message-ID: | fcb28372-1cc2-0062-d892-713434805d50@archidevsys.co.nz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/05/16 07:44, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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 Iâd 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
>
>
use tsv_ and tsq_?
Cheers,
Gavin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-05 21:49:24 | Re: Is pg_control file crashsafe? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-05 21:45:02 | Re: Poorly-thought-out handling of double variables in pgbench |