| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, Michael Riess <mlriess(at)gmx(dot)de>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: TSearch2 vs. Apache Lucene |
| Date: | 2005-12-06 18:02:12 |
| Message-ID: | 7983.1133892132@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Oleg Bartunov wrote:
>> Tsearch2 integration into pgsql would be cool, but, I see no problem to
>> use tsearch2 as an official extension module.
> Agreed. There isn't anything magical about a plug-in vs something
> integrated, as least in PostgreSQL.
The quality gap between contrib and the main system is a lot smaller
than it used to be, at least for those contrib modules that have
regression tests. Main and contrib get equal levels of testing from
the buildfarm, so they're about on par as far as portability goes.
We could never say that before 8.1 ...
(Having said that, I think that tsearch2 will eventually become part
of core, but probably not for awhile yet.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-06 18:03:46 | Re: postgresql performance tuning |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2005-12-06 17:48:08 | Re: Memory Leakage Problem |