| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu |
| Cc: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org, ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru |
| Subject: | Re: pg_trgm |
| Date: | 2010-05-27 15:51:24 |
| Message-ID: | 20100528.005124.14213795.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> So I think a GUC is broken because pg_tgrm has a index opclasses and
> any indexes built using one setting will be broken if the GUC is
> changed.
>
> Perhaps we need two sets of functions (which presumably call the same
> implementation with a flag to indicate which definition to use). Then
> you can define an index using one or the other and the meaning would
> be stable.
It's worse. pg_trgm has another compile option "IGNORECASE" which
might affect index opclasses.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2010-05-27 15:52:28 | Re: List traffic |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-05-27 15:50:18 | Re: Straightforward Synchronous Replication |