Re: Can pg_trgm handle non-alphanumeric characters?
От | Fujii Masao |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Can pg_trgm handle non-alphanumeric characters? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAHGQGwHFnSsq4zupvYYu1ca6o7xMoZ_fTnEJ=9BnvMxWkM2GQA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Can pg_trgm handle non-alphanumeric characters? (Euler Taveira <euler@timbira.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Can pg_trgm handle non-alphanumeric characters?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Euler Taveira <euler@timbira.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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: