From: | Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: syntax of operation with tsearch'sconfiguration |
Date: | 2006-11-18 11:12:47 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.64.0611181406240.28970@sn.sai.msu.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-11-18 at 00:13 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 03:53:35PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> Having the supporting code in core does not make much of a difference
>>>> otherwise from having it in contrib, does it?
>>>
>>> Given the nonextensibility of gram.y and keywords.c, it has to be in
>>> core to even think about having special syntax :-(
>>
>> Has anyone ever heard of extensible grammers?
>
> (not specifically answering Martijn...)
>
> The main thought for me on this thread is: Why do we need to invent
> *any* grammar to make this work? Why not just use functions?
>
> For PITR we have pg_start_backup() rather than BACKUP START. For
> advisory locks we have pg_advisory_lock()
>
> What's wrong with having pg_tsearch_ functions to do everything? There's
> nothing wrong with additional catalog tables/columns that are
> manipulated by function calls only. We have that already - look at
> pg_stat_reset() - no grammar stuff there.
>
> Anybody with an Oracle or SQLServer background is used to seeing system
> functions available as function calls; as I've observed above, so are
> we. We should keep the grammar clean to allow a very close adherence to
> SQL standards, IMHO.
>
> I would like to see Oleg and Teodor's good work come into core, but I
> don't want to see bucketfuls of new grammar issues.
Summarizing, we have two questions -
1. Will tsearch comes to the core
2. Do we need grammar changes
I hope, we have consensus about 1. - we need fts as a core feature.
Second question is not very principal, that's why we asked -hackers.
So, if we'll not touch grammar, are there any issues with tsearch2 in core ?
Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, Research Scientist, Head of AstroNet (www.astronet.ru)
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University, Russia
Internet: oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(495)939-16-83, +007(495)939-23-83
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-11-18 12:47:53 | Re: Proposal: syntax of operation with tsearch'sconfiguration |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-11-18 10:35:33 | Re: Proposal: syntax of operation with tsearch'sconfiguration |