Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Oleg Bartunov wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>
>
>>> I am also a bit concerned that the names of the proposed objects (parser,
>>> dictionary) don't convey their purpose adequately. Maybe TS_DICTIONARY and
>>> TS_PARSER might be better if we in fact need to name them.
>>>
>> this looks reasonable to me.
>>
>
> Huh, but we don't use keywords with ugly abbreviations and underscores.
> How about "FULLTEXT DICTIONARY" and "FULLTEXT PARSER"? (Using
> "FULLTEXT" instead of "FULL TEXT" means you don't created common
> reserved words, and furthermore you don't collide with an existing type
> name.)
>
good point. this works for me.
>
> We should also take the opportunity to discuss new keywords for the XML
> support -- will we use new grammar, or functions?
>
>
Well, it will have to be keywords if we want to be able to do anything
like the spec, IIRC.
cheers
andrew
