On Sat, 18 Nov 2006, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-11-18 at 00:13 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 03:53:35PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> Having the supporting code in core does not make much of a difference
>>>> otherwise from having it in contrib, does it?
>>>
>>> Given the nonextensibility of gram.y and keywords.c, it has to be in
>>> core to even think about having special syntax :-(
>>
>> Has anyone ever heard of extensible grammers?
>
> (not specifically answering Martijn...)
>
> The main thought for me on this thread is: Why do we need to invent
> *any* grammar to make this work? Why not just use functions?
>
> For PITR we have pg_start_backup() rather than BACKUP START. For
> advisory locks we have pg_advisory_lock()
>
> What's wrong with having pg_tsearch_ functions to do everything? There's
> nothing wrong with additional catalog tables/columns that are
> manipulated by function calls only. We have that already - look at
> pg_stat_reset() - no grammar stuff there.
>
> Anybody with an Oracle or SQLServer background is used to seeing system
> functions available as function calls; as I've observed above, so are
> we. We should keep the grammar clean to allow a very close adherence to
> SQL standards, IMHO.
>
> I would like to see Oleg and Teodor's good work come into core, but I
> don't want to see bucketfuls of new grammar issues.
Summarizing, we have two questions -
1. Will tsearch comes to the core
2. Do we need grammar changes
I hope, we have consensus about 1. - we need fts as a core feature.
Second question is not very principal, that's why we asked -hackers.
So, if we'll not touch grammar, are there any issues with tsearch2 in core ?
Regards, Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, Research Scientist, Head of AstroNet (www.astronet.ru),
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University, Russia
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(495)939-16-83, +007(495)939-23-83