From: "Fujii Masao" <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> wrote:
>> 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.
> Right. And removing KEEPONLYALNUM is a feature change rather than bug fix,
> so that should be proposed during major version development cycle.
For information, what kind of breakage would occur? Is it performance
degradation, extra index storage consumption, or undesirable query results?
I imagined removing KEEPONLYALNUM would just accept non-alphanumeric
characters and cause no harm to those who use only alphanumeric characters.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Geoghegan||Date: 2012-05-10 12:11:54|
|Subject: Re: Draft release notes complete|
|Previous:||From: Florian Pflug||Date: 2012-05-10 11:43:01|
|Subject: Re: Gsoc2012 idea, tablesample|