On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 11:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > So we end up with a normal sounding function that is overloaded to
> > provide all of the various goodies.
>
> As best I can tell, @@ does exactly this already. This is just a
> different spelling of the same capability, and I don't actually
> find it better. Why is "text_search(x,y)" better than "x @@ y"?
> We don't recommend that people write "texteq(x,y)" instead of
> "x = y".
Most people don't understand those differences. x = y means "make sure
they are the same" to most people. They don't see what you (and I) see:
function and operator interchangeability. So text_search() is better
than @@ and = is better than texteq(). Life ain't neat...
Right now, Full Text Search SQL looks like complete gibberish and it
dissuades many people from using what is an awesome set of features. I
just want to add a little sugar to help people get started.
> > Sound good?
>
> It's not an improvement
That is the very point of debate
> it's not compatible with what existing tsearch2
> users are accustomed to
@@ would still exist, so no problems. These additions are for new users,
not old ones.
> it's several months too late...
True. I wish I'd thought of it before. I've waded through the syntax
without thinking how to make it more easily readable and explainable.
Damn.
-- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
