Re: Should phraseto_tsquery('simple', 'blue blue') @@ to_tsvector('simple', 'blue') be true ? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Noah Misch
Subject Re: Should phraseto_tsquery('simple', 'blue blue') @@ to_tsvector('simple', 'blue') be true ?
Date
Msg-id 20160615065405.GB1043055@tornado.leadboat.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Should phraseto_tsquery('simple', 'blue blue') @@ to_tsvector('simple', 'blue') be true ?  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
Responses Re: Should phraseto_tsquery('simple', 'blue blue') @@ to_tsvector('simple', 'blue') be true ?  (Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:44:06PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 03:10:40AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 06:05:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Jean-Pierre Pelletier <jppelletier@e-djuster.com> writes:
> > > > I wanted to test if phraseto_tsquery(), new with 9.6 could be used for
> > > > matching consecutive words but it won't work for us if it cannot handle
> > > > consecutive *duplicate* words.
> > > 
> > > > For example, the following returns true:    select
> > > > phraseto_tsquery('simple', 'blue blue') @@ to_tsvector('simple', 'blue');
> > > 
> > > > Is this expected ?
> > > 
> > > I concur that that seems like a rather useless behavior.  If we have
> > > "x <-> y" it is not possible to match at distance zero, while if we
> > > have "x <-> x" it seems unlikely that the user is expecting us to
> > > treat that identically to "x".  So phrase search simply should not
> > > consider distance-zero matches.
> > 
> > [Action required within 72 hours.  This is a generic notification.]
> > 
> > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item.  Teodor,
> > since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
> > item.  If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
> > 9.6 open item, please let us know.  Otherwise, please observe the policy on
> > open item ownership[1] and send a status update within 72 hours of this
> > message.  Include a date for your subsequent status update.  Testers may
> > discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
> > well in advance of shipping 9.6rc1.  Consequently, I will appreciate your
> > efforts toward speedy resolution.  Thanks.
> > 
> > [1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160527025039.GA447393@tornado.leadboat.com
> 
> This PostgreSQL 9.6 open item is past due for your status update.  Kindly send
> a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status
> update.  Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160527025039.GA447393@tornado.leadboat.com

IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED.  This PostgreSQL 9.6 open item is long past due
for your status update.  Please reacquaint yourself with the policy on open
item ownership[1] and then reply immediately.  If I do not hear from you by
2016-06-16 07:00 UTC, I will transfer this item to release management team
ownership without further notice.

[1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160527025039.GA447393@tornado.leadboat.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andreas Seltenreich
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Don't generate parallel paths for rels with parallel-restricted
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: parallel.c is not marked as test covered