Re: Poorly named support routines for GIN tsearch index opclasses

"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:

> Another possibility would be to change the declared signatures to show
> "tsquery" rather than "internal" at the places where a tsquery argument
> is expected.  I'm less excited about that part though.

The use of "internal" arguments has always been the part of GIN/GIST which
bothered me the most. Most of those instances are actually quite necessary but
if there are some that aren't I'm all for removing them.

The only thing is that this has a semantic effect. It means users will be able
to call these functions from SQL directly. Are they safe to allow this? Is
this useful?

--  Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production
Tuning