Re: Is ALTER TEXT SEARCH CONFIGURATION PARSER = new_parser really sane?

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, 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 03:22:42
Message-ID: 200708220322.l7M3Mgw12419@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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 <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2007-08-22 03:28:07 Re: A couple of tsearch loose ends
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-08-22 01:39:46 pgsql: Simplify the syntax of CREATE/ALTER TEXT SEARCH DICTIONARY by