Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > But I would like a design that is bulletproof in dump/reload scenarios,
> > and I think it's fair to question that aspect of the tsearch2 design
> > because we've seen many reports of people having trouble updating
> > databases that use tsearch2.
> dump/reload is *the* biggest problem I've had with tsearch2 so far. But
> it hasn't been with the actual data - it's been the functions, and only
> when migrating between versions. But solving dump/reload reliably is one
> of the main things I'm hoping for in 8.3 ;-)
> As for a nother use-pointer, I use different configurations in the same
> database - but only one per table. I explicitly use the to_tsvector that
> specifies a configuration always - to avoid surprising myself.
> I don't use the functional index part, but for new users I can see how
> that's certainly a *lot* easier. Requiring the specification of the
> configuration explicitly when creating this index I don't see as a big
> problem at all - compared to the work needed to set up triggers. But
> it's nice not to have to do it when querying. But wouldn't that be
> solved by having to_tsvector() require the configuration, but
> to_tsquery() and plainto_tsquery() not require it?

Yea, I have thought about splitting up the behavior so tsvector always
needs the configuration but tsquery does not.  However, for a query, you
are probably still creating a tsvector so it didn't see to help much in

  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to