Neil Conway wrote:
If people had a problem with integrating tsearch2 in core they should have said so much earlier.Peter, Tom and others raised essentially identical objections when this design was initially proposed. For example: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-11/msg00392.php http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-11/msg00405.php http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-11/msg00437.php http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-11/msg00397.php Was a consensus reached in that thread? (I didn't see one, but perhaps I've overlooked a mail.)
IIRC Tom's main objection to the previous proposal was that it involved large grammar changes, which I understand is not now proposed. The way I read that thread was that there was no strenuous objection apart from the grammar parts.
Certainly I think we can still argue about details, such as the functional API.
cheers andrew ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
