On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've coded a small patch to allow CaseSensitive synonyms.
Applied with corrections (it'd be good if you at least pretended to test
stuff before submitting it).
Would a similar parameter be useful for any of the other
On Sun, 2008-03-09 at 23:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've coded a small patch to allow CaseSensitive synonyms.
Applied with corrections (it'd be good if you at least pretended to test
stuff before submitting it).
It is a frequent accusation of yours that
Simon Riggs wrote:
As Greg mentions on another thread, not all patches are *intended* to be
production quality by their authors. Many patches are shared for the
purpose of eliciting general feedback. You yourself encourage a group
development approach and specifically punish those people
Kris Jurka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The tsvector code is printing a pointer difference as an integer,
generating the following warning:
tsvector.c: In function 'tsvectorin':
tsvector.c:225: warning: format '%d' expects type 'int', but argument 2
has type 'long int'
I was thinking the %td
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 08:24 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
As Greg mentions on another thread, not all patches are *intended* to be
production quality by their authors. Many patches are shared for the
purpose of eliciting general feedback. You yourself encourage a group
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 08:24 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
As Greg mentions on another thread, not all patches are *intended* to be
production quality by their authors. Many patches are shared for the
purpose of eliciting general feedback. You
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think if you post something marked Work In Progress, there is an
implied commitment on your part to post something complete at a later stage.
It *wasn't* marked Work In Progress, and Simon went out of his way to
cross-post it to -patches, where the
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 09:42 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I think if you post something marked Work In Progress, there is an
implied commitment on your part to post something complete at a later stage.
So if it's forgotten you would be the one doing the forgetting. ;-)
But if they aren't on
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 10:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
In future perhaps I should take it as a given that
Simon doesn't expect his patches to be applied?
I think you should take it as a given that Simon would like to try to
work together, sharing ideas and code, without insults and public
derision
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
As Greg mentions on another thread, not all patches are *intended* to be
production quality by their authors. Many patches are shared for the
purpose of eliciting general feedback. You yourself encourage a group
development approach and
Oleg Bartunov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
Would a similar parameter be useful for any of the other dictionary
types?
There are many things desirable to do with dictionaries, for example,
say dictionary to return an original word plus it's normal form.
Tom Lane wrote:
This patch seems broken in a number of ways. Why are you removing
-DLINUX_PROFILE, for example? Are you sure you don't need -D_GNU_SOURCE?
And why add -DSUNOS4_CC, which is a Solaris-specific define (not that
we seem to be using it anywhere anymore)? Do we really have to have
Hmm, I can see how some middleware would help with folding or not
folding the input token, but what about the words coming from the
dictionary file (particularly the *output* lexeme)? It's not apparent
to me that it's sensible to try to control that from outside the
dictionary.
Right now I see
Teodor Sigaev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmm, I can see how some middleware would help with folding or not
folding the input token, but what about the words coming from the
dictionary file (particularly the *output* lexeme)? It's not apparent
to me that it's sensible to try to control that
Well, if you think this can/should be done somewhere outside the
dictionary, should I revert the applied patch?
No, that patch is about case sensitivity of synonym dictionary. I suppose, Simon
wants to replace 'bill' to 'account', but doesn't want to get 'account Clinton'
For another
Right now I see an significant advantage of such layer: two possible
extension of dictionary (filtering and storing original form) are
One more extension: drop too long words. For example, decrease limit of max
length of word to prevent long to be indexed - word with 100 characters is
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Another question that occurred to me - did you try using strpbrk() to
look for the next interesting character rather than your homegrown
searcher gadget? If so, how did that perform?
It looks like strpbrk() performs poorly:
unpatched:
testname | min duration
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Another question that occurred to me - did you try using strpbrk() to
look for the next interesting character rather than your homegrown
searcher gadget? If so, how did that perform?
It looks like strpbrk() performs poorly:
Yes, not
Zdenek Kotala [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is latest version of nonsegment support patch. I changed
LET_OS_MANAGE_FILESIZE to USE_SEGMENTED_FILES and I added
-disable-segmented-files switch to configure. I kept tuplestore behavior
and it still split file in both mode.
Applied with minor
Tom Lane wrote:
Zdenek Kotala [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is latest version of nonsegment support patch. I changed
LET_OS_MANAGE_FILESIZE to USE_SEGMENTED_FILES and I added
-disable-segmented-files switch to configure. I kept tuplestore behavior
and it still split file in both mode.
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Applied with minor corrections.
Why is this not the default when supported?
Fear.
Maybe eventually, but right now I think it's too risky.
One point that I already found out the hard way is that sizeof(off_t) = 8
does not guarantee
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Zdenek Kotala [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is latest version of nonsegment support patch. I changed
LET_OS_MANAGE_FILESIZE to USE_SEGMENTED_FILES and I added
-disable-segmented-files switch to configure. I kept tuplestore behavior
and it
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also it would get more buildfarm coverage if it were default. If it
breaks something we'll notice earlier.
Since nothing the regression tests do even approach 1GB, the odds that
the buildfarm will notice problems are approximately zero.
23 matches
Mail list logo