From: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: tsearch2 patch for 7.4.1 |
Date: | 2003-11-21 08:12:47 |
Message-ID: | 3FBDC8FF.80803@sigaev.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
No problem, dictionary with support of compounds will be avaliable as separate
contrib module from our site till 7.5.
Hannu Krosing wrote:
> Tom Lane kirjutas N, 20.11.2003 kell 17:18:
>
>>Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> writes:
>>
>>>we have a patch for contrib/tsearch2 we'd like to commit for 7.4.1.
>>>Is it ok ?
>>
>>>We added support for compound words using ispell dictionaries.
>>>It's rather important feature for agglutinative languages like
>>>german, norwegian (tested). This work was sponsored by ABC Startsiden
>>>(www.startsiden.no)
>>
>>This strikes me as a feature addition, and therefore not appropriate for
>>the 7.4 branch. You should only commit bug fixes into stable branches,
>>not feature additions.
>
>
> Is this so even for contrib ?
>
> I seem to remember that there have been new feature popping up in
> contrib in stable branches earlier.
>
> But if the general direction is to stabilise contrib as well, what about
> committing it as a separate patch file
> contrib/tsearch2/patches/compond-words-patch.1 , so that these people
> (or german/norvegian linux distributors) who consider lack of support
> for compound words a bug can apply it themselves before building ?
>
> ---------------
> Hannu
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2003-11-21 08:42:16 | Re: tsearch2 patch for 7.4.1 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-11-21 07:58:21 | Re: code question: rewriteDefine.c |