| From: | Artur Zakirov <a(dot)zakirov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Shulgin, Oleksandr" <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dmitrii Golub <dmitrii(dot)golub(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: unexpected result from to_tsvector |
| Date: | 2016-03-30 08:17:36 |
| Message-ID: | 56FB8BA0.2010804@postgrespro.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 29.03.2016 19:17, Shulgin, Oleksandr wrote:
>
> Hm, indeed. Unfortunately, it is not quite easy to find "the" new RFC,
> there was quite a number of correcting and extending RFCs issued over
> the last (almost) 30 years, which is not that surprising...
>
> Are we going to do something about it? Is it likely that
> relaxing/changing the rules on our side will break any possible
> workarounds that people might have employed to make the search work like
> they want it to work?
Do you mean here workarounds to recognize such values as
'test(at)123-reg(dot)ro' as an email address? Actually I do not see any
workarounds except a patch to PostgreSQL.
By the way, Teodor committed the patch yesterday.
>
> --
> Alex
>
--
Artur Zakirov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2016-03-30 08:18:00 | Re: Updated backup APIs for non-exclusive backups |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2016-03-30 08:16:40 | Re: standby_schedule |