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

Reply via email to