Re: tsearch in core patch, for inclusion

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