Re: Poorly named support routines for GIN tsearch index opclasses - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Poorly named support routines for GIN tsearch index opclasses
Date
Msg-id 19029.1196225408@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Poorly named support routines for GIN tsearch index opclasses  (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> "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 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?

No, no, and no, because there will still be at least one "internal"
argument.  I'm just suggesting that the argument positions that do
correspond to ordinary SQL types should be declared that way, as an
extra way of distinguishing these support functions from others for
other opclasses.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Treat
Date:
Subject: Re: Poorly designed tsearch NOTICEs
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Time to update list of contributors