On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 11:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > So we end up with a normal sounding function that is overloaded to > > provide all of the various goodies. > > As best I can tell, @@ does exactly this already. This is just a > different spelling of the same capability, and I don't actually > find it better. Why is "text_search(x,y)" better than "x @@ y"? > We don't recommend that people write "texteq(x,y)" instead of > "x = y".
Most people don't understand those differences. x = y means "make sure they are the same" to most people. They don't see what you (and I) see: function and operator interchangeability. So text_search() is better than @@ and = is better than texteq(). Life ain't neat... Right now, Full Text Search SQL looks like complete gibberish and it dissuades many people from using what is an awesome set of features. I just want to add a little sugar to help people get started. > > Sound good? > > It's not an improvement That is the very point of debate > it's not compatible with what existing tsearch2 > users are accustomed to @@ would still exist, so no problems. These additions are for new users, not old ones. > it's several months too late... True. I wish I'd thought of it before. I've waded through the syntax without thinking how to make it more easily readable and explainable. Damn. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
