> With such syntax we also don't need the TSL_FILTER flag for lexeme. At > the current time unaccent extension set this flag to pass a lexeme to > a next dictionary. This flag is used by the text-search parser. It > looks like a hard coded solution. User can't change this behaviour.
Exactly. > Maybe also better to use -> instead of AND? AND would has another > behaviour. I could create the following configuration: > > => ALTER TEXT SEARCH CONFIGURATION multi_conf > ALTER MAPPING FOR asciiword, asciihword, hword_asciipart, > word, hword, hword_part > WITH (german_ispell AND english_ispell) OR simple; > > which will return both german_ispell and english_ispell results. But > I'm not sure that this is a good solution. I see you usecase for AND. It might indeed be useful. AND suits well to it. Maybe THEN can be the keyword instead of -> for pass the results to subsequent dictionaries. They are all reserved keywords. I guess it wouldn't be a problem to use them. > Of course if this syntax will be implemented, old syntax with commas > also should be maintained. Yes, we should definitely. The comma can be interpreted either one of the keywords depending on left hand side dictionary. I would be glad to review, if you develop this feature. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers