| From: | Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Is ALTER TEXT SEARCH CONFIGURATION PARSER = new_parser really sane? |
| Date: | 2007-08-22 03:56:30 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.64.0708220753060.2727@sn.sai.msu.ru |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
> After starting to document this stuff I'm wondering whether it really
> makes sense to change the parser associated with a tsearch
> configuration. The problem is that the new parser might have an
> unrelated set of token types, but we don't do anything about updating
> the configuration's mappings.
looks reasonable, we could always create new parser.
>
> Ensuring sane behavior here would take a whole lot of new code, and
> I'm not sure that I see a use-case that justifies it. So I'm tempted to
> take out that particular ALTER capability altogether. I note that the
> corresponding feature of changing a dictionary's template on-the-fly
> doesn't exist (though it'd actually be a lot easier to support).
yes, here we tried to be sane
>
> Comments?
Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, Research Scientist, Head of AstroNet (www.astronet.ru)
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University, Russia
Internet: oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(495)939-16-83, +007(495)939-23-83
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-08-22 05:25:20 | Re: Crash with empty dictionary |
| Previous Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2007-08-22 03:45:49 | Re: tsearch2 patch status report |