Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Surely the CREATE INDEX syntax has got enough warts on it already.
>> Do you mean something like:
>> Where FULLTEXT is like VARCHAR OPS?
> Yeah, that one.  It might be more consistent to spell it as "fulltext_ops"
> but I wouldn't insist on it.

*shrug* fulltext_ops is probably more accurate but FULLTEXT is more
friendly :). I find you normally can't have both, my vote would probably
be consistency.

> Of course the issue not addressed here is where you specify all the
> secondary configuration data (the stuff currently handled by config
> tables in the contrib implementation).  Perhaps the WITH clause would
> work for that, though in the current code WITH is targeted at the index
> AM not individual opclasses.

Not sure what to say here. WITH seems logical and I don't think we want
to add yet another keyword but I certainly see your point.


Joshua D. Drake

>                       regards, tom lane


      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project:
PostgreSQL Replication:

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to