| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: syntax of operation with tsearch's configuration |
| Date: | 2006-11-17 20:02:57 |
| Message-ID: | 20061117200256.GS32174@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >I am also a bit concerned that the names of the proposed objects (parser,
> >dictionary) don't convey their purpose adequately. Maybe TS_DICTIONARY and
> >TS_PARSER might be better if we in fact need to name them.
>
> this looks reasonable to me.
Huh, but we don't use keywords with ugly abbreviations and underscores.
How about "FULLTEXT DICTIONARY" and "FULLTEXT PARSER"? (Using
"FULLTEXT" instead of "FULL TEXT" means you don't created common
reserved words, and furthermore you don't collide with an existing type
name.)
I also think the "thousands of lines" is an exaggeration :-) The
grammar should take a couple dozen at most. The rest of the code would
go to their own files.
We should also take the opportunity to discuss new keywords for the XML
support -- will we use new grammar, or functions?
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-11-17 20:09:52 | Re: Proposal: syntax of operation with tsearch's configuration |
| Previous Message | Stephen Harris | 2006-11-17 19:57:19 | Shutting down a warm standby database in 8.2beta3 |