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

Re: Can pg_trgm handle non-alphanumeric characters?

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>
Cc: MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Can pg_trgm handle non-alphanumeric characters?
Date: 2012-05-09 23:52:04
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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.



Fujii Masao

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2012-05-10 00:02:57
Subject: Re: synchronous_commit and remote_write
Previous:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2012-05-09 23:40:01
Subject: Re: synchronous_commit and remote_write

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group