Neil Conway wrote: >> If people had a problem with integrating tsearch2 in core they should >> have said so much earlier. >> > > Peter, Tom and others raised essentially identical objections when this > design was initially proposed. For example: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-11/msg00392.php > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-11/msg00405.php > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-11/msg00437.php > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-11/msg00397.php > > Was a consensus reached in that thread? (I didn't see one, but perhaps > I've overlooked a mail.) > > IIRC Tom's main objection to the previous proposal was that it involved large grammar changes, which I understand is not now proposed. The way I read that thread was that there was no strenuous objection apart from the grammar parts. Certainly I think we can still argue about details, such as the functional API. cheers andrew
pgsql-hackers by date:
Соглашаюсь с условиями обработки персональных данных