Re: [PROPOSAL] Shared Ispell dictionaries

2018-01-24 20:57 GMT+03:00 Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:
>
> Thanks. I don't have time to review/test this before FOSDEM, but a
> couple of comments regarding some of the points you mentioned.
>

Thank you for your thoughts.

> > I thought about it. And it seems to me that we can use functions
> > ts_unload() and ts_reload() instead of new syntax. We already have
> > text search functions like ts_lexize() and ts_debug(), and it is
> > better to keep consistency.
>
> This argument seems a bit strange. Both ts_lexize() and ts_debug() are
> operating on text values, and are meant to be executed as functions from
> SQL - particularly ts_lexize(). It's hard to imagine this implemented as
> DDL commands.
>
> The unload/reload is something that operates on a database object
> (dictionary), which already has create/drop/alter DDL. So it seems
> somewhat natural to treat unload/reload as another DDL action.
>
> Taken to an extreme, this argument would essentially mean we should not
> have any DDL commands because we have SQL functions.
>
> That being said, I'm not particularly attached to having this DDL now.
> Implementing it seems straight-forward (particularly when we already
> have the stuff implemented as functions), and some of the other open
> questions seem more important to tackle now.
>

I understood your opinion. I haven't strong opinion on the subject yet.
And I agree that they can be implemented in future improvements for shared
dictionaries.

--
Arthur Zakirov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company