Thread: [HACKERS] [Doc fix] Wrong explanation about tsquery_phrase

[HACKERS] [Doc fix] Wrong explanation about tsquery_phrase

From
"Seki, Eiji"
Date:
Hi all,

I found a wrong explanation about tsquery_phrase. I was slightly confused when I tried to use it.

The current document explains tsquery_phrase as the followings[1].

- Function: tsquery_phrase(query1 tsquery, query2 tsquery, distance integer)
- Return Type: tsquery
- Description: make query that searches for query1 followed by query2 at maximum distance distance

However, 'exact distance' seems to be right instead of 'maximum distance'.

This was probably overlooked in the following commit.

028350f619f7688e0453fcd2c4b25abe9ba30fa7

[1] -- https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/functions-textsearch.html

--
Regards,
Eiji Seki
Fujitsu

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Attachment

Re: [HACKERS] [Doc fix] Wrong explanation about tsquery_phrase

From
Robert Haas
Date:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Seki, Eiji <seki.eiji@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> I found a wrong explanation about tsquery_phrase. I was slightly confused when I tried to use it.
>
> The current document explains tsquery_phrase as the followings[1].
>
> - Function: tsquery_phrase(query1 tsquery, query2 tsquery, distance integer)
> - Return Type: tsquery
> - Description: make query that searches for query1 followed by query2 at maximum distance distance
>
> However, 'exact distance' seems to be right instead of 'maximum distance'.
>
> This was probably overlooked in the following commit.
>
> 028350f619f7688e0453fcd2c4b25abe9ba30fa7

I think you are correct.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



Re: [HACKERS] [Doc fix] Wrong explanation about tsquery_phrase

From
Tom Lane
Date:
"Seki, Eiji" <seki.eiji@jp.fujitsu.com> writes:
> I found a wrong explanation about tsquery_phrase. I was slightly confused when I tried to use it.

Yes, this was definitely an oversight in 028350f61; thanks for catching
it!  I think though that it would read better if it simply said
"distance", so I changed it that way.
        regards, tom lane