From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Stas Kelvich <s(dot)kelvich(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Naming of new tsvector functions |
Date: | 2016-05-05 23:04:27 |
Message-ID: | 18893.1462489467@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 06 May 2016, at 00:46, Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz> wrote:
>> On 06/05/16 07:44, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> 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.
>> use tsv_ and tsq_?
> That would be a good convention if we were able to easily rename old functions.
> But now that will just create another pattern on top of three existing (no prefix, ts_*, tsvector_*).
Yeah :-(. Well, time grows short, so let's go with ts_ for these.
I'll go make it happen.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2016-05-05 23:37:18 | Re: pg9.6 segfault using simple query (related to use fk for join estimates) |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-05-05 23:01:40 | Re: pg_shmem_allocations view |