Re: Can pg_trgm handle non-alphanumeric characters?

From: Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>
To: MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Can pg_trgm handle non-alphanumeric characters?
Date: 2012-05-09 23:18:54
Message-ID: 4FAAFB5E.2030602@timbira.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 09-05-2012 19:17, MauMau wrote:
> Then, does it make sense to remove "#define KEEPONLYALNUM" in 9.1.4? Would it
> cause any problems? If no, I wish that, because it eliminates the need to do
> the removal every time the users applies minor releases.
>
If you do so, you'll break minor versions. IMHO the default is the desirable
behavior for almost all use cases (you are the first one that complain about
it). Maybe in the future, we should be able to flip this flag without
rebuilding binaries.

--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira - Timbira http://www.timbira.com.br/
PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2012-05-09 23:40:01 Re: synchronous_commit and remote_write
Previous Message Joe Conway 2012-05-09 22:36:03 Re: memory leak regression 9.1 versus 8.1