| From: | Stas Kelvich <s(dot)kelvich(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Naming of new tsvector functions |
| Date: | 2016-05-05 22:25:08 |
| Message-ID: | 4AB95789-1F3F-4D67-BEF1-B43553ECAA3B@postgrespro.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 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.
>>
>> regards, tom lane
>>
>>
> use tsv_ and tsq_?
>
>
> Cheers,
> Gavin
>
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_*).
Stas Kelvich
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-05 22:53:39 | Re: Initial release notes created for 9.6 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-05 21:49:24 | Re: Is pg_control file crashsafe? |