Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru> writes:
> The reason to save SQLish interface to dictionaries is a simplicity of
> configuration. Snowball's stemmers are useful as is, but ispell dictionary
> requires some configuration action before using.
Yeah. I had been wondering about moving the dict_initoption over to the
configuration entry --- is that sane at all? It would mean that
dict_init functions would have to guard themselves against invalid
options, but they probably ought to do that anyway. If we did that,
I think we could have a fixed set of dictionaries without too much
problem, and focus on just configurations as being user-alterable.
>>> Next, it took me a while to understand how Mapping objects fit into
>>> the scheme at all, and now that (I think) I understand, I'm wondering
>>> why treat them as an independent concept.
> ALTER FULLTEXT CONFIGURATION cfgname ADD MAPPING FOR tokentypename[, ...] WITH
> dictname1[, ...];
> ALTER FULLTEXT CONFIGURATION cfgname ALTER MAPPING FOR tokentypename[, ...] WITH
> dictname1[, ...];
> ALTER FULLTEXT CONFIGURATION cfgname ALTER MAPPING [FOR tokentypename[, ...]]
> REPLACE olddictname TO newdictname;
> ALTER FULLTEXT CONFIGURATION cfgname DROP MAPPING [IF EXISTS] FOR tokentypename;
> Is it looking reasonable?
Er ... what's the difference between the second and third forms?
regards, tom lane
