Re: Can pg_trgm handle non-alphanumeric characters?
От | MauMau |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Can pg_trgm handle non-alphanumeric characters? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 6A03E28C25F24EA1AD941E37DDFD90D5@maumau обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Can pg_trgm handle non-alphanumeric characters? (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Can pg_trgm handle non-alphanumeric characters?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
From: "Fujii Masao" <masao.fujii@gmail.com> > 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. 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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: