On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 18:38 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> In any case, I agree with Andrew that it would be pretty dumb to reject
> a funded, already written patch.
Well, there are two separate issues: should we include tsearch2 in core,
and what syntax should it use? Changing the syntax would not require
rejecting the entire patch.
> 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.)
-Neil
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
