2018-01-24 20:57 GMT+03:00 Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.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
