| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru |
| Subject: | Re: pg_trgm |
| Date: | 2010-05-27 15:03:28 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimHysZVq8bymu92DfOxzDiOeAa2XaL1LxP3y_GY@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I think a more appropriate type of fix would be to expose the
> KEEPONLYALNUM option as a GUC, or some other way of letting the
> user decide what he wants.
>
So I think a GUC is broken because pg_tgrm has a index opclasses and
any indexes built using one setting will be broken if the GUC is
changed.
Perhaps we need two sets of functions (which presumably call the same
implementation with a flag to indicate which definition to use). Then
you can define an index using one or the other and the meaning would
be stable.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2010-05-27 15:20:48 | Re: quoting and recovery.conf |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-27 14:52:57 | Re: pg_trgm |