From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: removing tsearch2 |
Date: | 2017-02-10 17:32:41 |
Message-ID: | 33267.1486747961@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> That's not a bad idea, but I think it's an independent issue. If the
> hacks are still needed for an external module, we shouldn't go out of
> our way to remove them even if we nuke tsearch2 (but we don't need to
> maintain them going forward unless we get a complaint). If they hacks
> aren't still needed, they could be removed whether or not we keep
> tsearch2 in contrib. Unless I'm confused?
Technically, it's probably independent of whether we keep tsearch2 in
contrib. I think (but haven't researched it) that it's more a matter
of whether we care to still support direct upgrades from pre-release-N
versions of tsearch2, for some N. Politically though, I think it'll
be easier to make an aggressive decision in that regard if we are
tossing tsearch2 out of contrib.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-02-10 17:34:50 | Re: Parallel Index Scans |
Previous Message | Markus Nullmeier | 2017-02-10 17:18:13 | Re: WIP: Faster Expression Processing and Tuple Deforming (including JIT) |