Re: [PATCH] Phrase search ported to 9.6
| От | Oleg Bartunov |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [PATCH] Phrase search ported to 9.6 |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAF4Au4xtkJgCNRhuK80xLM=B5L7puz75NKcgE-QAHnrgQ4yRTQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] Phrase search ported to 9.6 (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] Phrase search ported to 9.6
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
SELECT q @@ to_tsquery('fatal <> error');
and
SELECT q @@ to_tsquery('fatal <2> error');
What led you to choose the ? operator for the FOLLOWED BY semantics?
It doesn't seem a terribly natural choice -- most other things seems to
use ? as some sort of wildcard. What about something like "...", so you
would do
SELECT q @@ to_tsquery('fatal ... error');
and
SELECT q @@ (tsquery 'fatal' ... tsquery 'error');
originally was $, but then we change it to ?, we don't remember why. During warming-up this morning we came to other suggestion
SELECT q @@ to_tsquery('fatal <> error');
and
SELECT q @@ to_tsquery('fatal <2> error');
How about this ?
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: