Stas Kelvich writes:
> On 06 May 2016, at 00:46, Gavin Flower wrote:
>> On 06/05/16 07:44, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Yeah, I see we're already a bit inconsistent here. The problem with using
>>> a ts_ prefix, to my mind, is that it offers no option for distinguishing
>>> tsvector from tsquery, should
> On 06 May 2016, at 00:46, Gavin Flower wrote:
>
> On 06/05/16 07:44, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, I see we're already a bit inconsistent here. The problem with using
>> a ts_ prefix, to my mind, is that it offers no option for distinguishing
>> tsvector from tsquery, should you need to do tha
On 06/05/16 07:44, Tom Lane wrote:
Stas Kelvich writes:
On 04 May 2016, at 20:15, Tom Lane wrote:
Also, I'd supposed that we'd rename to tsvector_something, since
the same patch also introduced tsvector_to_array() and
array_to_tsvector(). What's the motivation for using ts_ as the
prefix?
Th
Stas Kelvich writes:
>> On 04 May 2016, at 20:15, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Also, I'd supposed that we'd rename to tsvector_something, since
>> the same patch also introduced tsvector_to_array() and
>> array_to_tsvector(). What's the motivation for using ts_ as the
>> prefix?
> There is already severa
On 05/05/16 21:20, Stas Kelvich wrote:
On 04 May 2016, at 20:15, Tom Lane wrote:
Stas Kelvich writes:
On 04 May 2016, at 16:58, Tom Lane wrote:
The other ones are not so problematic because they do not conflict with
SQL keywords. It's only delete() and filter() that scare me.
Okay, so chan
> On 04 May 2016, at 20:15, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Stas Kelvich writes:
>>> On 04 May 2016, at 16:58, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> The other ones are not so problematic because they do not conflict with
>>> SQL keywords. It's only delete() and filter() that scare me.
>
>> Okay, so changed functions to ts
Stas Kelvich writes:
>> On 04 May 2016, at 16:58, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The other ones are not so problematic because they do not conflict with
>> SQL keywords. It's only delete() and filter() that scare me.
> Okay, so changed functions to ts_setweight, ts_delete, ts_unnest, ts_filter.
Somehow, I
> On 04 May 2016, at 16:58, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Stas Kelvich writes:
>>> On 03 May 2016, at 00:59, David Fetter wrote:
>>> I suspect that steering that ship would be a good idea starting with
>>> deprecation of the old name in 9.6, etc. hs_filter(), perhaps?
>
>> In 9.5 there already were tsv
Stas Kelvich writes:
>> On 03 May 2016, at 00:59, David Fetter wrote:
>> I suspect that steering that ship would be a good idea starting with
>> deprecation of the old name in 9.6, etc. hs_filter(), perhaps?
> In 9.5 there already were tsvector functions length(), numnode(), strip()
> Recent c
> On 03 May 2016, at 00:59, David Fetter wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 01:58:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> I think we'd be better off to rename these to tsvector_delete()
>>> and tsvector_filter() while we still can.
>>
>> ... although I now notice that hstore already exposes
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 01:58:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > I think we'd be better off to rename these to tsvector_delete()
> > and tsvector_filter() while we still can.
>
> ... although I now notice that hstore already exposes a function
> named delete(), so that ship may have sailed
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> I think we'd be better off to rename these to tsvector_delete() and
>> tsvector_filter() while we still can.
>
> ... although I now notice that hstore already exposes a function named
> delete(), so that ship may have sailed already. B
I wrote:
> I think we'd be better off to rename these to tsvector_delete() and
> tsvector_filter() while we still can.
... although I now notice that hstore already exposes a function named
delete(), so that ship may have sailed already. But I'm more troubled
by filter() anyhow, since that keywor
On 05/02/2016 10:27 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I noticed that 6943a946c introduces some new functions named delete()
and filter(). This does not seem like a terribly bright idea to me.
They may not be formally ambiguous with the corresponding keywords,
but it's not very hard to imagine how small typos
14 matches
Mail list logo
