Re: [HACKERS] text search patch status update?

2009-01-08 Thread Bruce Momjian
OK, Heikki still believe the behavior below is a bug. Can I get feedback from anyone else on this? TODO item? --- Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Sushant Sinha wrote: Patch #2. I think this is a straigt forward bug fix.

Re: [HACKERS] text search patch status update?

2009-01-07 Thread Bruce Momjian
Uh, where are we on this? I see the same output in CVS HEAD as Heikki, and I assume he thought at least one of them was wrong. ;-) --- Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Sushant Sinha wrote: Patch #2. I think this is a straigt

Re: [HACKERS] text search patch status update?

2009-01-07 Thread Sushant Sinha
The default headline generation function is complicated. It checks a lot of cases to determine the best headline to be displayed. So Heikki's examples just say that headline generation function may not be very intuitive. However, his examples were not affected by the bug. Because of the bug,

Re: [HACKERS] text search patch status update?

2009-01-07 Thread Bruce Momjian
Sushant Sinha wrote: The default headline generation function is complicated. It checks a lot of cases to determine the best headline to be displayed. So Heikki's examples just say that headline generation function may not be very intuitive. However, his examples were not affected by the bug.

Re: [HACKERS] text search patch status update?

2009-01-07 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Bruce Momjian wrote: Sushant Sinha wrote: The default headline generation function is complicated. It checks a lot of cases to determine the best headline to be displayed. So Heikki's examples just say that headline generation function may not be very intuitive. However, his examples were not

Re: [HACKERS] text search patch status update?

2008-09-17 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Sushant Sinha wrote: Patch #2. I think this is a straigt forward bug fix. Yes, I think you're right. In hlCover(), *q is 0 when the only match is the first item in the text, and we shouldn't bail out with return false in that case. But there seems to be something else going on here as

Re: [HACKERS] text search patch status update?

2008-09-17 Thread Teodor Sigaev
I remember about that but right now I havn't time to make final review. Sorry. Will return soon. Sushant Sinha wrote: Any status updates on the following patches? 1. Fragments in tsearch2 headlines: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-08/msg00043.php 2. Bug in hlCover:

[HACKERS] text search patch status update?

2008-09-16 Thread Sushant Sinha
Any status updates on the following patches? 1. Fragments in tsearch2 headlines: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-08/msg00043.php 2. Bug in hlCover: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-08/msg00089.php -Sushant. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] text search patch status update?

2008-09-16 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Sushant Sinha escribió: Any status updates on the following patches? 1. Fragments in tsearch2 headlines: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-08/msg00043.php 2. Bug in hlCover: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-08/msg00089.php Are these ready for review? If

Re: [HACKERS] text search patch status update?

2008-09-16 Thread Sushant Sinha
Patch #1. Teodor was fine with the previous version of the patch. After that I modified it slightly to allow a FragmentDelimiter option and Teodor may have to look at that. Patch #2. I think this is a straigt forward bug fix. -Sushant. On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL