From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: tristan.chambers@gmail.com
Cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Explicit or implicit?
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 04:37:55 +0100
Message-ID: <a53b97bab996b7b12ed31d21184efdd91abe9f64.camel@cybertec.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3468877.1637517048@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <163742474559.26193.12547875443867026853@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
<3468877.1637517048@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Sun, 2021-11-21 at 12:50 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:
> > "The @@ operator also supports text input, allowing explicit conversion of a
> > text string to tsvector or tsquery to be skipped in simple cases."I believe
> > that the text is saying implicit, but uses the word "explicit" instead. Is
> > this a typo? Thanks.
>
> I think it's intended. The point is that instead of, say,
>
> tsvector_column @@ 'query here'::tsquery
>
> you could just write
>
> tsvector_column @@ 'query here'
Right. You can skip the explicit conversion of adding a type cast.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: laurenz.albe@cybertec.at, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, tristan.chambers@gmail.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Explicit or implicit?
In-Reply-To: <a53b97bab996b7b12ed31d21184efdd91abe9f64.camel@cybertec.at>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox