From: | Daniel Vázquez <daniel2d2art(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: unaccent contrib |
Date: | 2011-09-22 15:39:09 |
Message-ID: | CA+KJVfwVgngRQdEQV3L26BiCGXrRsR61XrHH0oxZH-kWmOrDKQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Before 9.x, how do unaccent full text searches ?
i
2011/9/21 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> writes:
> > On 21-09-2011 13:28, Daniel Vázquez wrote:
> >> "unaccent" is compatible with postgresql 8.4 (but not is in their
> contrib
> >> version distribution)
>
> > No, it is not. AFAICS it is necessary to add some backend code that is
> not in 8.4.
>
> [ pokes at it ] Yeah, you are right. The version of unaccent that is
> in our source tree is a filtering dictionary, and therefore cannot
> possibly work with backends older than 9.0 (when the filtering
> dictionary feature was added).
>
> So I'm wondering where the OP read that it was compatible with 8.4.
> Our own documentation about it certainly does not say that. It's
> possible that Oleg and Teodor had some prototype version, different
> from what got committed to our tree, that would work in 8.4.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
--
Daniel Vázquez
SICONET (A Bull Group Company)
Torre Agbar. Avda. Diagonal, 211 - planta 23
08018 - Barcelona
telf: + 34 93 2272727 (Ext. 2952)
fax: + 34 93 2272728
www.bull.es - www.siconet.es
daniel(dot)vazquez(at)bull(dot)es
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-09-22 15:44:44 | Re: Online base backup from the hot-standby |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-09-22 15:31:36 | Re: memory barriers (was: Yes, WaitLatch is vulnerable to weak-memory-ordering bugs) |