Re: BUG #13440: unaccent does not remove all diacritics

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 11:43:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> No, not after someone pointed out that it could have strange side-effects
> >> on full text search configurations that used unaccent. You'd stop being
> >> able to find documents whenever your search term is stripped of accents
> >> more thoroughly than before. That might be all right in a new major
> >> release (if it documents that you might have to rebuild your FTS indexes
> >> and derived tsvector columns). It's not all right in a minor release.
>
> > Hmm, so what happens if you pg_upgrade FTS indexes? Are they somehow
> > marked invalid and a REINDEX is forced?
>
> No. They're not broken in a fundamental way, it's just that certain
> search terms no longer find document words you might think they should
> match. Oleg and Teodor argued back at the beginning of the FTS stuff
> that this sort of thing wasn't critical, and I agree --- but we shouldn't
> change the mapping in minor releases.

Uh, I thought the whole discussion was whether this should be changed in
head _and_ 9.5, or just head. I didn't think anyone was suggesting
minor releases. We don't consider a 9.5 change to be a minor release
change at this point, do we?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +