-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 02:36:41AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> > > Yea, seems more work than is necessary. If we require the configuration
> > > to be always supplied, and document that mismatches are a problem, I
> > > think we are in good shape.
> >
> > We should agree that all you describe is only for DUMMY users.
> > >From authors point of view I dislike your approach to treat text searching
> > as a very limited tool [...]
[...]
> I am glad we are moving this interface discussion forward. It seems
> Heikki has similar concerns about the interface being error-prone.
>
> It would be nice to have a novice and advanced interface, but we would
> have to document both, and then that is going to be confusing for users.
>
> As I see it, specifying the configuration name in every function call is
> the novice interface, and avoids the most common errors. I can see
> defaulting the interface name as being an advanced interface, but I
> don't think it has enough of a feature to be worth documenting and
> implementing.
>
> If we figure out something better in 8.4 we can implement it, but at
> this point I can't think of any good solution to not specifying the
> configuration name every time.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that the configuration
is more attached to a column/index thatn to the whole database. If
there's a default in an expression, I'd rather expect this default to be
drawn from the index involved than from a global value (like a functional
index does now).
Regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGuuAoBcgs9XrR2kYRAqiiAJsFL+Iu/b/xYaLza5ozmi839Qh5awCeOp+f
SZHKDPUHZ3u99XzLBn2ZKjw=
=twEt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
