Re: [HACKERS] Is ALTER TEXT SEARCH CONFIGURATION PARSER = new_parser really sane?
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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. I'm not really up-to-date on all this tsearch stuff. What would happen if you already had a parser but wanted to fix a bug or add one new feature or something like that? -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] Is ALTER TEXT SEARCH CONFIGURATION PARSER = new_parser really sane?
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/ phone: +007(495)939-16-83, +007(495)939-23-83 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [HACKERS] Is ALTER TEXT SEARCH CONFIGURATION PARSER = new_parser really sane?
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. > > 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). > > Comments? Agreed, the parser should be a central part of the configuration and changing it seems odd. If someone really wanted to change it they can create a new configuration with a new parser, then rename the new one into place. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + 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
