On Thursday 15 March 2007 12:17, Teodor Sigaev wrote: > Last try there was a fight about syntax of introduced commands. And we > (Oleg and me) developed variant of patch with another syntax. We will not > change docs until agreement will be reached, current version > http://mira.sai.msu.su/~megera/pgsql/ftsdoc/ > > Following demonstrates subset of FTS syntax using example from > http://mira.sai.msu.su/~megera/pgsql/ftsdoc/fts-complete-tut.html. >
This is nice. <snip> > Comparing that syntaxes with current tsearch2 is placed at > http://mira.sai.msu.su/~megera/pgsql/ftsdoc/fts-syntax-compare.html > > So, which is syntax more attractive? Honestly I don't find any of these syntax's to be head and shoulders above the others, but would probably lean toward the original syntax, since it has some level of familiarity among the existing user base. > And is there some another objections? Most people whom I talk to about tsearch who want the syntax changed to make it easier want something akin to just "CREATE INDEX fti1 on t1(c1) USING FULLTEXT" and then be done with it. This patch isn't going to give people that. I'm also concerned about the stability of the tsearch api in general wrt including it in core. Currently the recommended upgrade practice is to dump/reload without tsearch, installing the new servers version of tsearch instead. IMHO this is not an acceptable solution for core-included features. So is this actually going to be improved in a core tsearch? system tables are not dumped by default, so that seems easier, until you consider that your custom tsearch install will then be lost on upgrade... oops! -- Robert Treat Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
