| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| 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 08:32:52 |
| Message-ID: | 87r6lwhsuj.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2007-08-22 12:20:29 | Re: pgsql: Simplify the syntax of CREATE/ALTER TEXT SEARCH DICTIONARY by |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2007-08-22 07:34:27 | Re: A couple of tsearch loose ends |