On 2017-11-28 17:57, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
Hi Aleksander,
Thank you for review. I have tried to fix all of your comments.
However i want to mention that the absence of comments for functions
in to_tsany.c is justified by the absence of comments for other
similar functions.
> Hi Victor,
>
>> I like the idea and I think it's a great patch. However in current
>> shape it
>> requires some amount of reworking to meet PostgreSQL standards of code
>> quality.
>
> Also I would like to add that I agree with Thomas Munro:
>
>> Calling this search syntax just "query" seems too general and
>> overloaded. "Simple search", "simple query", "web search", "web
>> syntax", "web query", "Google-style query", "Poogle" (kidding!) ...
>> well I'm not sure, but I feel like it deserves a proper name.
>> websearch_to_tsquery()?
>
> websearch_to_tsquery() sounds much better than query_to_tsquery().
>
> Also I agree Tomas Vondra in regard that:
>
>> 2) I don't think we should mention Google in the docs explicitly. Not
>> that I'm somehow anti-google, but this syntax was certainly not
>> invented
>> by Google - I vividly remember using something like that on Altavista
>> (yeah, I'm old). And it's used by pretty much every other web search
>> engine out there ...
>
> I suggest to rephrase:
>
> ```
> + about its input. <function>queryto_tsquery</function> provides a
> + different, Google like syntax to create tsquery.
> ```
>
> .. to something more like "provides a different syntax, similar to one
> used in web search engines, to create tsqeury". And maybe give a few
> examples right in the next sentence.
Best,
--
Victor Drobny
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
