Re: Can pg_trgm handle non-alphanumeric characters?

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.

> IMHO the default is the desirable
> behavior for almost all use cases (you are the first one that complain about
> it).

Really? I was thinking non-English users (including me) basicaly would not be
satisfied with the default because they cannot use pg_trgm for N-gram full text
search of non-English text. Though I agree some users would prefer the default.

> Maybe in the future, we should be able to flip this flag without
> rebuilding binaries.

Agreed.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao