> On 04 May 2016, at 20:15, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Stas Kelvich <s.kelvich@postgrespro.ru> writes:
>>> On 04 May 2016, at 16:58, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> The other ones are not so problematic because they do not conflict with
>>> SQL keywords. It's only delete() and filter() that scare me.
>
>> Okay, so changed functions to ts_setweight, ts_delete, ts_unnest, ts_filter.
>
> Somehow, I don't think you read what I wrote.
>
> Renaming the pre-existing setweight() function to ts_setweight() is
> not going to happen; it's been like that for half a dozen years now.
> It would make no sense to call the new variant ts_setweight() while
> keeping setweight() for the existing function, either.
Oh, I accidentally renamed one of the old functions, my mistake.
> I also don't see that much point in ts_unnest(), since unnest()
> in our implementation is a function not a keyword. I don't have
> a strong opinion about that one, though.
Just to keep some level of uniformity in function names. But also i’m
not insisting.
> Also, I'd supposed that we'd rename to tsvector_something, since
> the same patch also introduced tsvector_to_array() and
> array_to_tsvector(). What's the motivation for using ts_ as the
> prefix?
There is already several functions named ts_* (ts_rank, ts_headline, ts_rewrite)
and two named starting from tsvector_* (tsvector_update_trigger, tsvector_update_trigger_column).
Personally I’d prefer ts_ over tsvector_ since it is shorter, and still keeps semantics.
>
> regards, tom lane
--
Stas Kelvich
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
