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".
> Sound good?
It's not an improvement, it's not compatible with what existing tsearch2
users are accustomed to, and it's several months too late...
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
