Re: Proposal: syntax of operation with tsearch's configuration

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