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.

Regards
MauMau

In response to

• Re: Can pg_trgm handle non-alphanumeric characters? at 2012-05-09 23:52:04 from Fujii Masao

Responses

• Re: Can pg_trgm handle non-alphanumeric characters? at 2012-05-10 14:43:08 from Kevin Grittner

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