Обсуждение: Rethinking ts_debug() output

I hadn't realized till just now that ts_debug()'s output is not
compatible with the way the function was defined in 8.2 contrib.
But since apparently backwards-compatibility is not a controlling
factor here, I have a couple suggestions:

* It seems like a bad idea to merge the controlling-dictionary and
resulting-lexemes values into a single text column.  This may be
readable enough, but it's pretty horrid if you want to do any
postprocessing on the result.  I suggest splitting this into a
regdictionary column and a text[] column, both of which yield NULL
for an unrecognized token.  As far as I can see at the moment this
will require two evaluations of the pg_ts_config_map sub-select,
which is a tad annoying, but we shouldn't be foreclosing easy
postprocessing of the result.

* Personally I find the forced mixed-case names of the output columns
to be pretty darn inconvenient when I want to do anything with the
output.  Since the previous incarnation of the function didn't use
mixed-case names, it's obvious that there's no field experience
suppporting this decision.  May I suggest dropping the mixed-case names?

It's not too late to reconsider this stuff before beta2 ...
        regards, tom lane

2007/10/22, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> I hadn't realized till just now that ts_debug()'s output is not
> compatible with the way the function was defined in 8.2 contrib.
> But since apparently backwards-compatibility is not a controlling
> factor here, I have a couple suggestions:
>
> * It seems like a bad idea to merge the controlling-dictionary and
> resulting-lexemes values into a single text column.  This may be
> readable enough, but it's pretty horrid if you want to do any
> postprocessing on the result.  I suggest splitting this into a
> regdictionary column and a text[] column, both of which yield NULL
> for an unrecognized token.  As far as I can see at the moment this
> will require two evaluations of the pg_ts_config_map sub-select,
> which is a tad annoying, but we shouldn't be foreclosing easy
> postprocessing of the result.
>
+ 1`

> * Personally I find the forced mixed-case names of the output columns
> to be pretty darn inconvenient when I want to do anything with the
> output.  Since the previous incarnation of the function didn't use
> mixed-case names, it's obvious that there's no field experience
> suppporting this decision.  May I suggest dropping the mixed-case names?
>
> It's not too late to reconsider this stuff before beta2 ...
>
>                         regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
>
>                 http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
>