Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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 (view raw or flat)
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

pgsql-hackers by date

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

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group