Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>
>> IIRC Tom's main objection to the previous proposal was that it involved
>> large grammar changes, which I understand is not now proposed.
>>
>
> No, they're already in there --- the patch seems to have been written
> according to that proposal despite the objections.
>
>
>
Oh. ouch.
That seems strange given this query from Oleg back on 18 Nov:
> So, if we'll not touch grammar, are there any issues with tsearch2 in core ?
cheers
andrew
