postgresql/src/include/tsearch/ts_utils.h

256 lines
8.0 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

/*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
* ts_utils.h
* helper utilities for tsearch
*
* Copyright (c) 1998-2018, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
*
2010-09-20 22:08:53 +02:00
* src/include/tsearch/ts_utils.h
*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/
#ifndef _PG_TS_UTILS_H_
#define _PG_TS_UTILS_H_
#include "nodes/pg_list.h"
#include "tsearch/ts_public.h"
#include "tsearch/ts_type.h"
/*
* Common parse definitions for tsvector and tsquery
*/
/* tsvector parser support. */
struct TSVectorParseStateData; /* opaque struct in tsvector_parser.c */
typedef struct TSVectorParseStateData *TSVectorParseState;
#define P_TSV_OPR_IS_DELIM (1 << 0)
#define P_TSV_IS_TSQUERY (1 << 1)
#define P_TSV_IS_WEB (1 << 2)
extern TSVectorParseState init_tsvector_parser(char *input, int flags);
extern void reset_tsvector_parser(TSVectorParseState state, char *input);
2007-11-15 22:14:46 +01:00
extern bool gettoken_tsvector(TSVectorParseState state,
char **token, int *len,
WordEntryPos **pos, int *poslen,
2007-11-15 22:14:46 +01:00
char **endptr);
extern void close_tsvector_parser(TSVectorParseState state);
/* phrase operator begins with '<' */
#define ISOPERATOR(x) \
( pg_mblen(x) == 1 && ( *(x) == '!' || \
*(x) == '&' || \
*(x) == '|' || \
*(x) == '(' || \
*(x) == ')' || \
*(x) == '<' \
) )
/* parse_tsquery */
struct TSQueryParserStateData; /* private in backend/utils/adt/tsquery.c */
typedef struct TSQueryParserStateData *TSQueryParserState;
2007-11-15 22:14:46 +01:00
typedef void (*PushFunction) (Datum opaque, TSQueryParserState state,
2017-06-21 20:39:04 +02:00
char *token, int tokenlen,
Phase 2 of pgindent updates. Change pg_bsd_indent to follow upstream rules for placement of comments to the right of code, and remove pgindent hack that caused comments following #endif to not obey the general rule. Commit e3860ffa4dd0dad0dd9eea4be9cc1412373a8c89 wasn't actually using the published version of pg_bsd_indent, but a hacked-up version that tried to minimize the amount of movement of comments to the right of code. The situation of interest is where such a comment has to be moved to the right of its default placement at column 33 because there's code there. BSD indent has always moved right in units of tab stops in such cases --- but in the previous incarnation, indent was working in 8-space tab stops, while now it knows we use 4-space tabs. So the net result is that in about half the cases, such comments are placed one tab stop left of before. This is better all around: it leaves more room on the line for comment text, and it means that in such cases the comment uniformly starts at the next 4-space tab stop after the code, rather than sometimes one and sometimes two tabs after. Also, ensure that comments following #endif are indented the same as comments following other preprocessor commands such as #else. That inconsistency turns out to have been self-inflicted damage from a poorly-thought-through post-indent "fixup" in pgindent. This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
2017-06-21 21:18:54 +02:00
int16 tokenweights, /* bitmap as described in
* QueryOperand struct */
2017-06-21 20:39:04 +02:00
bool prefix);
#define P_TSQ_PLAIN (1 << 0)
#define P_TSQ_WEB (1 << 1)
extern TSQuery parse_tsquery(char *buf,
PushFunction pushval,
Datum opaque,
int flags);
/* Functions for use by PushFunction implementations */
extern void pushValue(TSQueryParserState state,
char *strval, int lenval, int16 weight, bool prefix);
extern void pushStop(TSQueryParserState state);
extern void pushOperator(TSQueryParserState state, int8 oper, int16 distance);
/*
* parse plain text and lexize words
*/
typedef struct
{
uint16 len;
uint16 nvariant;
union
{
uint16 pos;
2007-11-15 22:14:46 +01:00
/*
2007-11-15 22:14:46 +01:00
* When apos array is used, apos[0] is the number of elements in the
* array (excluding apos[0]), and alen is the allocated size of the
* array.
*/
uint16 *apos;
} pos;
uint16 flags; /* currently, only TSL_PREFIX */
char *word;
uint32 alen;
} ParsedWord;
typedef struct
{
ParsedWord *words;
int32 lenwords;
int32 curwords;
int32 pos;
} ParsedText;
extern void parsetext(Oid cfgId, ParsedText *prs, char *buf, int32 buflen);
/*
* headline framework, flow in common to generate:
* 1 parse text with hlparsetext
* 2 parser-specific function to find part
* 3 generateHeadline to generate result text
*/
extern void hlparsetext(Oid cfgId, HeadlineParsedText *prs, TSQuery query,
char *buf, int32 buflen);
extern text *generateHeadline(HeadlineParsedText *prs);
/*
* TSQuery execution support
*
* TS_execute() executes a tsquery against data that can be represented in
* various forms. The TSExecuteCallback callback function is called to check
* whether a given primitive tsquery value is matched in the data.
*/
/*
* struct ExecPhraseData is passed to a TSExecuteCallback function if we need
* lexeme position data (because of a phrase-match operator in the tsquery).
* The callback should fill in position data when it returns true (success).
Fix strange behavior (and possible crashes) in full text phrase search. In an attempt to simplify the tsquery matching engine, the original phrase search patch invented rewrite rules that would rearrange a tsquery so that no AND/OR/NOT operator appeared below a PHRASE operator. But this approach had numerous problems. The rearrangement step was missed by ts_rewrite (and perhaps other places), allowing tsqueries to be created that would cause Assert failures or perhaps crashes at execution, as reported by Andreas Seltenreich. The rewrite rules effectively defined semantics for operators underneath PHRASE that were buggy, or at least unintuitive. And because rewriting was done in tsqueryin() rather than at execution, the rearrangement was user-visible, which is not very desirable --- for example, it might cause unexpected matches or failures to match in ts_rewrite. As a somewhat independent problem, the behavior of nested PHRASE operators was only sane for left-deep trees; queries like "x <-> (y <-> z)" did not behave intuitively at all. To fix, get rid of the rewrite logic altogether, and instead teach the tsquery execution engine to manage AND/OR/NOT below a PHRASE operator by explicitly computing the match location(s) and match widths for these operators. This requires introducing some additional fields into the publicly visible ExecPhraseData struct; but since there's no way for third-party code to pass such a struct to TS_phrase_execute, it shouldn't create an ABI problem as long as we don't move the offsets of the existing fields. Another related problem was that index searches supposed that "!x <-> y" could be lossily approximated as "!x & y", which isn't correct because the latter will reject, say, "x q y" which the query itself accepts. This required some tweaking in TS_execute_ternary along with the main tsquery engine. Back-patch to 9.6 where phrase operators were introduced. While this could be argued to change behavior more than we'd like in a stable branch, we have to do something about the crash hazards and index-vs-seqscan inconsistency, and it doesn't seem desirable to let the unintuitive behaviors induced by the rewriting implementation stand as precedent. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/28215.1481999808@sss.pgh.pa.us Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/26706.1482087250@sss.pgh.pa.us
2016-12-21 21:18:25 +01:00
* If it cannot return position data, it may leave "data" unchanged, but
* then the caller of TS_execute() must pass the TS_EXEC_PHRASE_NO_POS flag
* and must arrange for a later recheck with position data available.
*
* The reported lexeme positions must be sorted and unique. Callers must only
* consult the position bits of the pos array, ie, WEP_GETPOS(data->pos[i]).
* This allows the returned "pos" to point directly to the WordEntryPos
* portion of a tsvector value. If "allocated" is true then the pos array
* is palloc'd workspace and caller may free it when done.
*
Fix strange behavior (and possible crashes) in full text phrase search. In an attempt to simplify the tsquery matching engine, the original phrase search patch invented rewrite rules that would rearrange a tsquery so that no AND/OR/NOT operator appeared below a PHRASE operator. But this approach had numerous problems. The rearrangement step was missed by ts_rewrite (and perhaps other places), allowing tsqueries to be created that would cause Assert failures or perhaps crashes at execution, as reported by Andreas Seltenreich. The rewrite rules effectively defined semantics for operators underneath PHRASE that were buggy, or at least unintuitive. And because rewriting was done in tsqueryin() rather than at execution, the rearrangement was user-visible, which is not very desirable --- for example, it might cause unexpected matches or failures to match in ts_rewrite. As a somewhat independent problem, the behavior of nested PHRASE operators was only sane for left-deep trees; queries like "x <-> (y <-> z)" did not behave intuitively at all. To fix, get rid of the rewrite logic altogether, and instead teach the tsquery execution engine to manage AND/OR/NOT below a PHRASE operator by explicitly computing the match location(s) and match widths for these operators. This requires introducing some additional fields into the publicly visible ExecPhraseData struct; but since there's no way for third-party code to pass such a struct to TS_phrase_execute, it shouldn't create an ABI problem as long as we don't move the offsets of the existing fields. Another related problem was that index searches supposed that "!x <-> y" could be lossily approximated as "!x & y", which isn't correct because the latter will reject, say, "x q y" which the query itself accepts. This required some tweaking in TS_execute_ternary along with the main tsquery engine. Back-patch to 9.6 where phrase operators were introduced. While this could be argued to change behavior more than we'd like in a stable branch, we have to do something about the crash hazards and index-vs-seqscan inconsistency, and it doesn't seem desirable to let the unintuitive behaviors induced by the rewriting implementation stand as precedent. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/28215.1481999808@sss.pgh.pa.us Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/26706.1482087250@sss.pgh.pa.us
2016-12-21 21:18:25 +01:00
* "negate" means that the pos array contains positions where the query does
* not match, rather than positions where it does. "width" is positive when
* the match is wider than one lexeme. Neither of these fields normally need
* to be touched by TSExecuteCallback functions; they are used for
* phrase-search processing within TS_execute.
*
* All fields of the ExecPhraseData struct are initially zeroed by caller.
*/
typedef struct ExecPhraseData
{
int npos; /* number of positions reported */
bool allocated; /* pos points to palloc'd data? */
Fix strange behavior (and possible crashes) in full text phrase search. In an attempt to simplify the tsquery matching engine, the original phrase search patch invented rewrite rules that would rearrange a tsquery so that no AND/OR/NOT operator appeared below a PHRASE operator. But this approach had numerous problems. The rearrangement step was missed by ts_rewrite (and perhaps other places), allowing tsqueries to be created that would cause Assert failures or perhaps crashes at execution, as reported by Andreas Seltenreich. The rewrite rules effectively defined semantics for operators underneath PHRASE that were buggy, or at least unintuitive. And because rewriting was done in tsqueryin() rather than at execution, the rearrangement was user-visible, which is not very desirable --- for example, it might cause unexpected matches or failures to match in ts_rewrite. As a somewhat independent problem, the behavior of nested PHRASE operators was only sane for left-deep trees; queries like "x <-> (y <-> z)" did not behave intuitively at all. To fix, get rid of the rewrite logic altogether, and instead teach the tsquery execution engine to manage AND/OR/NOT below a PHRASE operator by explicitly computing the match location(s) and match widths for these operators. This requires introducing some additional fields into the publicly visible ExecPhraseData struct; but since there's no way for third-party code to pass such a struct to TS_phrase_execute, it shouldn't create an ABI problem as long as we don't move the offsets of the existing fields. Another related problem was that index searches supposed that "!x <-> y" could be lossily approximated as "!x & y", which isn't correct because the latter will reject, say, "x q y" which the query itself accepts. This required some tweaking in TS_execute_ternary along with the main tsquery engine. Back-patch to 9.6 where phrase operators were introduced. While this could be argued to change behavior more than we'd like in a stable branch, we have to do something about the crash hazards and index-vs-seqscan inconsistency, and it doesn't seem desirable to let the unintuitive behaviors induced by the rewriting implementation stand as precedent. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/28215.1481999808@sss.pgh.pa.us Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/26706.1482087250@sss.pgh.pa.us
2016-12-21 21:18:25 +01:00
bool negate; /* positions are where query is NOT matched */
WordEntryPos *pos; /* ordered, non-duplicate lexeme positions */
Fix strange behavior (and possible crashes) in full text phrase search. In an attempt to simplify the tsquery matching engine, the original phrase search patch invented rewrite rules that would rearrange a tsquery so that no AND/OR/NOT operator appeared below a PHRASE operator. But this approach had numerous problems. The rearrangement step was missed by ts_rewrite (and perhaps other places), allowing tsqueries to be created that would cause Assert failures or perhaps crashes at execution, as reported by Andreas Seltenreich. The rewrite rules effectively defined semantics for operators underneath PHRASE that were buggy, or at least unintuitive. And because rewriting was done in tsqueryin() rather than at execution, the rearrangement was user-visible, which is not very desirable --- for example, it might cause unexpected matches or failures to match in ts_rewrite. As a somewhat independent problem, the behavior of nested PHRASE operators was only sane for left-deep trees; queries like "x <-> (y <-> z)" did not behave intuitively at all. To fix, get rid of the rewrite logic altogether, and instead teach the tsquery execution engine to manage AND/OR/NOT below a PHRASE operator by explicitly computing the match location(s) and match widths for these operators. This requires introducing some additional fields into the publicly visible ExecPhraseData struct; but since there's no way for third-party code to pass such a struct to TS_phrase_execute, it shouldn't create an ABI problem as long as we don't move the offsets of the existing fields. Another related problem was that index searches supposed that "!x <-> y" could be lossily approximated as "!x & y", which isn't correct because the latter will reject, say, "x q y" which the query itself accepts. This required some tweaking in TS_execute_ternary along with the main tsquery engine. Back-patch to 9.6 where phrase operators were introduced. While this could be argued to change behavior more than we'd like in a stable branch, we have to do something about the crash hazards and index-vs-seqscan inconsistency, and it doesn't seem desirable to let the unintuitive behaviors induced by the rewriting implementation stand as precedent. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/28215.1481999808@sss.pgh.pa.us Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/26706.1482087250@sss.pgh.pa.us
2016-12-21 21:18:25 +01:00
int width; /* width of match in lexemes, less 1 */
} ExecPhraseData;
/*
* Signature for TSQuery lexeme check functions
*
* arg: opaque value passed through from caller of TS_execute
* val: lexeme to test for presence of
* data: to be filled with lexeme positions; NULL if position data not needed
*
* Return true if lexeme is present in data, else false. If data is not
Fix strange behavior (and possible crashes) in full text phrase search. In an attempt to simplify the tsquery matching engine, the original phrase search patch invented rewrite rules that would rearrange a tsquery so that no AND/OR/NOT operator appeared below a PHRASE operator. But this approach had numerous problems. The rearrangement step was missed by ts_rewrite (and perhaps other places), allowing tsqueries to be created that would cause Assert failures or perhaps crashes at execution, as reported by Andreas Seltenreich. The rewrite rules effectively defined semantics for operators underneath PHRASE that were buggy, or at least unintuitive. And because rewriting was done in tsqueryin() rather than at execution, the rearrangement was user-visible, which is not very desirable --- for example, it might cause unexpected matches or failures to match in ts_rewrite. As a somewhat independent problem, the behavior of nested PHRASE operators was only sane for left-deep trees; queries like "x <-> (y <-> z)" did not behave intuitively at all. To fix, get rid of the rewrite logic altogether, and instead teach the tsquery execution engine to manage AND/OR/NOT below a PHRASE operator by explicitly computing the match location(s) and match widths for these operators. This requires introducing some additional fields into the publicly visible ExecPhraseData struct; but since there's no way for third-party code to pass such a struct to TS_phrase_execute, it shouldn't create an ABI problem as long as we don't move the offsets of the existing fields. Another related problem was that index searches supposed that "!x <-> y" could be lossily approximated as "!x & y", which isn't correct because the latter will reject, say, "x q y" which the query itself accepts. This required some tweaking in TS_execute_ternary along with the main tsquery engine. Back-patch to 9.6 where phrase operators were introduced. While this could be argued to change behavior more than we'd like in a stable branch, we have to do something about the crash hazards and index-vs-seqscan inconsistency, and it doesn't seem desirable to let the unintuitive behaviors induced by the rewriting implementation stand as precedent. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/28215.1481999808@sss.pgh.pa.us Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/26706.1482087250@sss.pgh.pa.us
2016-12-21 21:18:25 +01:00
* NULL, it should be filled with lexeme positions, but function can leave
* it as zeroes if position data is not available.
*/
typedef bool (*TSExecuteCallback) (void *arg, QueryOperand *val,
2017-06-21 20:39:04 +02:00
ExecPhraseData *data);
/*
* Flag bits for TS_execute
*/
#define TS_EXEC_EMPTY (0x00)
/*
* If TS_EXEC_CALC_NOT is not set, then NOT expressions are automatically
* evaluated to be true. Useful in cases where NOT cannot be accurately
Fix strange behavior (and possible crashes) in full text phrase search. In an attempt to simplify the tsquery matching engine, the original phrase search patch invented rewrite rules that would rearrange a tsquery so that no AND/OR/NOT operator appeared below a PHRASE operator. But this approach had numerous problems. The rearrangement step was missed by ts_rewrite (and perhaps other places), allowing tsqueries to be created that would cause Assert failures or perhaps crashes at execution, as reported by Andreas Seltenreich. The rewrite rules effectively defined semantics for operators underneath PHRASE that were buggy, or at least unintuitive. And because rewriting was done in tsqueryin() rather than at execution, the rearrangement was user-visible, which is not very desirable --- for example, it might cause unexpected matches or failures to match in ts_rewrite. As a somewhat independent problem, the behavior of nested PHRASE operators was only sane for left-deep trees; queries like "x <-> (y <-> z)" did not behave intuitively at all. To fix, get rid of the rewrite logic altogether, and instead teach the tsquery execution engine to manage AND/OR/NOT below a PHRASE operator by explicitly computing the match location(s) and match widths for these operators. This requires introducing some additional fields into the publicly visible ExecPhraseData struct; but since there's no way for third-party code to pass such a struct to TS_phrase_execute, it shouldn't create an ABI problem as long as we don't move the offsets of the existing fields. Another related problem was that index searches supposed that "!x <-> y" could be lossily approximated as "!x & y", which isn't correct because the latter will reject, say, "x q y" which the query itself accepts. This required some tweaking in TS_execute_ternary along with the main tsquery engine. Back-patch to 9.6 where phrase operators were introduced. While this could be argued to change behavior more than we'd like in a stable branch, we have to do something about the crash hazards and index-vs-seqscan inconsistency, and it doesn't seem desirable to let the unintuitive behaviors induced by the rewriting implementation stand as precedent. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/28215.1481999808@sss.pgh.pa.us Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/26706.1482087250@sss.pgh.pa.us
2016-12-21 21:18:25 +01:00
* computed (GiST) or it isn't important (ranking). From TS_execute's
* perspective, !CALC_NOT means that the TSExecuteCallback function might
* return false-positive indications of a lexeme's presence.
*/
#define TS_EXEC_CALC_NOT (0x01)
/*
Fix strange behavior (and possible crashes) in full text phrase search. In an attempt to simplify the tsquery matching engine, the original phrase search patch invented rewrite rules that would rearrange a tsquery so that no AND/OR/NOT operator appeared below a PHRASE operator. But this approach had numerous problems. The rearrangement step was missed by ts_rewrite (and perhaps other places), allowing tsqueries to be created that would cause Assert failures or perhaps crashes at execution, as reported by Andreas Seltenreich. The rewrite rules effectively defined semantics for operators underneath PHRASE that were buggy, or at least unintuitive. And because rewriting was done in tsqueryin() rather than at execution, the rearrangement was user-visible, which is not very desirable --- for example, it might cause unexpected matches or failures to match in ts_rewrite. As a somewhat independent problem, the behavior of nested PHRASE operators was only sane for left-deep trees; queries like "x <-> (y <-> z)" did not behave intuitively at all. To fix, get rid of the rewrite logic altogether, and instead teach the tsquery execution engine to manage AND/OR/NOT below a PHRASE operator by explicitly computing the match location(s) and match widths for these operators. This requires introducing some additional fields into the publicly visible ExecPhraseData struct; but since there's no way for third-party code to pass such a struct to TS_phrase_execute, it shouldn't create an ABI problem as long as we don't move the offsets of the existing fields. Another related problem was that index searches supposed that "!x <-> y" could be lossily approximated as "!x & y", which isn't correct because the latter will reject, say, "x q y" which the query itself accepts. This required some tweaking in TS_execute_ternary along with the main tsquery engine. Back-patch to 9.6 where phrase operators were introduced. While this could be argued to change behavior more than we'd like in a stable branch, we have to do something about the crash hazards and index-vs-seqscan inconsistency, and it doesn't seem desirable to let the unintuitive behaviors induced by the rewriting implementation stand as precedent. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/28215.1481999808@sss.pgh.pa.us Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/26706.1482087250@sss.pgh.pa.us
2016-12-21 21:18:25 +01:00
* If TS_EXEC_PHRASE_NO_POS is set, allow OP_PHRASE to be executed lossily
* in the absence of position information: a true result indicates that the
Fix strange behavior (and possible crashes) in full text phrase search. In an attempt to simplify the tsquery matching engine, the original phrase search patch invented rewrite rules that would rearrange a tsquery so that no AND/OR/NOT operator appeared below a PHRASE operator. But this approach had numerous problems. The rearrangement step was missed by ts_rewrite (and perhaps other places), allowing tsqueries to be created that would cause Assert failures or perhaps crashes at execution, as reported by Andreas Seltenreich. The rewrite rules effectively defined semantics for operators underneath PHRASE that were buggy, or at least unintuitive. And because rewriting was done in tsqueryin() rather than at execution, the rearrangement was user-visible, which is not very desirable --- for example, it might cause unexpected matches or failures to match in ts_rewrite. As a somewhat independent problem, the behavior of nested PHRASE operators was only sane for left-deep trees; queries like "x <-> (y <-> z)" did not behave intuitively at all. To fix, get rid of the rewrite logic altogether, and instead teach the tsquery execution engine to manage AND/OR/NOT below a PHRASE operator by explicitly computing the match location(s) and match widths for these operators. This requires introducing some additional fields into the publicly visible ExecPhraseData struct; but since there's no way for third-party code to pass such a struct to TS_phrase_execute, it shouldn't create an ABI problem as long as we don't move the offsets of the existing fields. Another related problem was that index searches supposed that "!x <-> y" could be lossily approximated as "!x & y", which isn't correct because the latter will reject, say, "x q y" which the query itself accepts. This required some tweaking in TS_execute_ternary along with the main tsquery engine. Back-patch to 9.6 where phrase operators were introduced. While this could be argued to change behavior more than we'd like in a stable branch, we have to do something about the crash hazards and index-vs-seqscan inconsistency, and it doesn't seem desirable to let the unintuitive behaviors induced by the rewriting implementation stand as precedent. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/28215.1481999808@sss.pgh.pa.us Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/26706.1482087250@sss.pgh.pa.us
2016-12-21 21:18:25 +01:00
* phrase might be present. Without this flag, OP_PHRASE always returns
* false if lexeme position information is not available.
*/
Fix strange behavior (and possible crashes) in full text phrase search. In an attempt to simplify the tsquery matching engine, the original phrase search patch invented rewrite rules that would rearrange a tsquery so that no AND/OR/NOT operator appeared below a PHRASE operator. But this approach had numerous problems. The rearrangement step was missed by ts_rewrite (and perhaps other places), allowing tsqueries to be created that would cause Assert failures or perhaps crashes at execution, as reported by Andreas Seltenreich. The rewrite rules effectively defined semantics for operators underneath PHRASE that were buggy, or at least unintuitive. And because rewriting was done in tsqueryin() rather than at execution, the rearrangement was user-visible, which is not very desirable --- for example, it might cause unexpected matches or failures to match in ts_rewrite. As a somewhat independent problem, the behavior of nested PHRASE operators was only sane for left-deep trees; queries like "x <-> (y <-> z)" did not behave intuitively at all. To fix, get rid of the rewrite logic altogether, and instead teach the tsquery execution engine to manage AND/OR/NOT below a PHRASE operator by explicitly computing the match location(s) and match widths for these operators. This requires introducing some additional fields into the publicly visible ExecPhraseData struct; but since there's no way for third-party code to pass such a struct to TS_phrase_execute, it shouldn't create an ABI problem as long as we don't move the offsets of the existing fields. Another related problem was that index searches supposed that "!x <-> y" could be lossily approximated as "!x & y", which isn't correct because the latter will reject, say, "x q y" which the query itself accepts. This required some tweaking in TS_execute_ternary along with the main tsquery engine. Back-patch to 9.6 where phrase operators were introduced. While this could be argued to change behavior more than we'd like in a stable branch, we have to do something about the crash hazards and index-vs-seqscan inconsistency, and it doesn't seem desirable to let the unintuitive behaviors induced by the rewriting implementation stand as precedent. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/28215.1481999808@sss.pgh.pa.us Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/26706.1482087250@sss.pgh.pa.us
2016-12-21 21:18:25 +01:00
#define TS_EXEC_PHRASE_NO_POS (0x02)
extern bool TS_execute(QueryItem *curitem, void *arg, uint32 flags,
TSExecuteCallback chkcond);
extern bool tsquery_requires_match(QueryItem *curitem);
/*
* to_ts* - text transformation to tsvector, tsquery
*/
extern TSVector make_tsvector(ParsedText *prs);
extern int32 tsCompareString(char *a, int lena, char *b, int lenb, bool prefix);
/*
* Possible strategy numbers for indexes
* TSearchStrategyNumber - (tsvector|text) @@ tsquery
* TSearchWithClassStrategyNumber - tsvector @@@ tsquery
*/
#define TSearchStrategyNumber 1
#define TSearchWithClassStrategyNumber 2
/*
* TSQuery Utilities
*/
extern QueryItem *clean_NOT(QueryItem *ptr, int32 *len);
Fix strange behavior (and possible crashes) in full text phrase search. In an attempt to simplify the tsquery matching engine, the original phrase search patch invented rewrite rules that would rearrange a tsquery so that no AND/OR/NOT operator appeared below a PHRASE operator. But this approach had numerous problems. The rearrangement step was missed by ts_rewrite (and perhaps other places), allowing tsqueries to be created that would cause Assert failures or perhaps crashes at execution, as reported by Andreas Seltenreich. The rewrite rules effectively defined semantics for operators underneath PHRASE that were buggy, or at least unintuitive. And because rewriting was done in tsqueryin() rather than at execution, the rearrangement was user-visible, which is not very desirable --- for example, it might cause unexpected matches or failures to match in ts_rewrite. As a somewhat independent problem, the behavior of nested PHRASE operators was only sane for left-deep trees; queries like "x <-> (y <-> z)" did not behave intuitively at all. To fix, get rid of the rewrite logic altogether, and instead teach the tsquery execution engine to manage AND/OR/NOT below a PHRASE operator by explicitly computing the match location(s) and match widths for these operators. This requires introducing some additional fields into the publicly visible ExecPhraseData struct; but since there's no way for third-party code to pass such a struct to TS_phrase_execute, it shouldn't create an ABI problem as long as we don't move the offsets of the existing fields. Another related problem was that index searches supposed that "!x <-> y" could be lossily approximated as "!x & y", which isn't correct because the latter will reject, say, "x q y" which the query itself accepts. This required some tweaking in TS_execute_ternary along with the main tsquery engine. Back-patch to 9.6 where phrase operators were introduced. While this could be argued to change behavior more than we'd like in a stable branch, we have to do something about the crash hazards and index-vs-seqscan inconsistency, and it doesn't seem desirable to let the unintuitive behaviors induced by the rewriting implementation stand as precedent. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/28215.1481999808@sss.pgh.pa.us Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/26706.1482087250@sss.pgh.pa.us
2016-12-21 21:18:25 +01:00
extern TSQuery cleanup_tsquery_stopwords(TSQuery in);
typedef struct QTNode
{
QueryItem *valnode;
uint32 flags;
int32 nchild;
char *word;
uint32 sign;
struct QTNode **child;
} QTNode;
/* bits in QTNode.flags */
#define QTN_NEEDFREE 0x01
#define QTN_NOCHANGE 0x02
#define QTN_WORDFREE 0x04
typedef uint64 TSQuerySign;
#define TSQS_SIGLEN (sizeof(TSQuerySign)*BITS_PER_BYTE)
#define TSQuerySignGetDatum(X) Int64GetDatum((int64) (X))
#define DatumGetTSQuerySign(X) ((TSQuerySign) DatumGetInt64(X))
#define PG_RETURN_TSQUERYSIGN(X) return TSQuerySignGetDatum(X)
#define PG_GETARG_TSQUERYSIGN(n) DatumGetTSQuerySign(PG_GETARG_DATUM(n))
extern QTNode *QT2QTN(QueryItem *in, char *operand);
extern TSQuery QTN2QT(QTNode *in);
extern void QTNFree(QTNode *in);
extern void QTNSort(QTNode *in);
extern void QTNTernary(QTNode *in);
extern void QTNBinary(QTNode *in);
extern int QTNodeCompare(QTNode *an, QTNode *bn);
extern QTNode *QTNCopy(QTNode *in);
extern void QTNClearFlags(QTNode *in, uint32 flags);
extern bool QTNEq(QTNode *a, QTNode *b);
extern TSQuerySign makeTSQuerySign(TSQuery a);
extern QTNode *findsubquery(QTNode *root, QTNode *ex, QTNode *subs,
2007-11-15 22:14:46 +01:00
bool *isfind);
Phase 2 of pgindent updates. Change pg_bsd_indent to follow upstream rules for placement of comments to the right of code, and remove pgindent hack that caused comments following #endif to not obey the general rule. Commit e3860ffa4dd0dad0dd9eea4be9cc1412373a8c89 wasn't actually using the published version of pg_bsd_indent, but a hacked-up version that tried to minimize the amount of movement of comments to the right of code. The situation of interest is where such a comment has to be moved to the right of its default placement at column 33 because there's code there. BSD indent has always moved right in units of tab stops in such cases --- but in the previous incarnation, indent was working in 8-space tab stops, while now it knows we use 4-space tabs. So the net result is that in about half the cases, such comments are placed one tab stop left of before. This is better all around: it leaves more room on the line for comment text, and it means that in such cases the comment uniformly starts at the next 4-space tab stop after the code, rather than sometimes one and sometimes two tabs after. Also, ensure that comments following #endif are indented the same as comments following other preprocessor commands such as #else. That inconsistency turns out to have been self-inflicted damage from a poorly-thought-through post-indent "fixup" in pgindent. This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
2017-06-21 21:18:54 +02:00
#endif /* _PG_TS_UTILS_H_ */