| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Oleg Bartunov" <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, "Teodor Sigaev" <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Latin vs non-Latin words in text search parsing |
| Date: | 2007-10-23 15:16:24 |
| Message-ID: | 12231.1193152584@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> writes:
> On Oct 23, 2007, at 10:42 , Tom Lane wrote:
>> apart_hword Part of hyphenated word, all ASCII letters
>> part_hword Part of hyphenated word, all letters
>> numpart_hword Part of hyphenated word, mixed letters and digits
> Is there a rationale for using these instead of hword_apart,
> hword_part and hword_numpart?
Only that the category names were constructed that way in the contrib
module, and so this would seem familiar to existing tsearch2 users.
However, we are changing enough other details of the tsearch
configuration that maybe that's not a very strong consideration.
I have no objection in principle to choosing nicer names, except
that I would like to avoid a long-drawn-out discussion. Is there
general approval of Michael's suggestion?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-10-23 15:19:19 | Re: Latin vs non-Latin words in text search parsing |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2007-10-23 15:14:14 | Re: 8.2.3: Server crashes on Windows using Eclipse/Junit |