Stas Kelvich <s.kelv...@postgrespro.ru> writes:
>> On 04 May 2016, at 16:58, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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 don't think you read what I wrote.
Renaming the pre-existing setweight() function to ts_setweight() is
not going to happen; it's been like that for half a dozen years now.
It would make no sense to call the new variant ts_setweight() while
keeping setweight() for the existing function, either.
I also don't see that much point in ts_unnest(), since unnest()
in our implementation is a function not a keyword. I don't have
a strong opinion about that one, though.
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?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
