Re: [PROPOSAL] Improvements of Hunspell dictionaries support

From: Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>
To: Artur Zakirov <a(dot)zakirov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Improvements of Hunspell dictionaries support
Date: 2016-02-10 16:46:39
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> I duplicate the patch here.

it's very good thing to update disctionaries to support modern versions. And
thank you for improving documentation. Also I've impressed by long description
in spell.c header.

Som notices about code:

struct SPELL. Why do you remove union p? You leave comment
about using d struct instead of flag field and as can see
it's right comment. It increases size of SPELL structure.

2 struct AFFIX. I'm agree with Alvaro taht sum of sizes of bit fields should be
less or equal to size of integer. In opposite case, suppose, we can get
undefined behavior. Please, split bitfields to two integers.

3 unsigned char flagval[65000];
Is it forbidden to use 65555 number? In any case, decodeFlag() doesn't
restrict return value. I suggest to enlarge array to 1<<16 and add limit
to return value of decodeFlag().

I'd like to see a short comment describing at least new functions

Pls, add tests for new code.

Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-02-10 16:58:00 Re: Mac OS: invalid byte sequence for encoding "UTF8"
Previous Message Mike Rylander 2016-02-10 16:45:47 Re: old bug in full text parser