From: | "Shulgin, Oleksandr" <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Artur Zakirov <a(dot)zakirov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dmitrii Golub <dmitrii(dot)golub(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: unexpected result from to_tsvector |
Date: | 2016-03-30 13:22:36 |
Message-ID: | CACACo5Q0j6sFJZcRjcTjj=i+wNiWBMXCtp3Zw_+ZKmpALEC70g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Artur Zakirov <a(dot)zakirov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
wrote:
> On 29.03.2016 19:17, Shulgin, Oleksandr wrote:
>
>>
>> Hm, indeed. Unfortunately, it is not quite easy to find "the" new RFC,
>> there was quite a number of correcting and extending RFCs issued over
>> the last (almost) 30 years, which is not that surprising...
>>
>> Are we going to do something about it? Is it likely that
>> relaxing/changing the rules on our side will break any possible
>> workarounds that people might have employed to make the search work like
>> they want it to work?
>>
>
> Do you mean here workarounds to recognize such values as 'test(at)123-reg(dot)ro'
> as an email address? Actually I do not see any workarounds except a patch
> to PostgreSQL.
>
No, more like disallowing '_' in the host/domain- names. Anyway, that is
pure speculation on my part.
By the way, Teodor committed the patch yesterday.
I've seen that after posting my reply to the list ;-)
--
Alex
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jose Luis Tallon | 2016-03-30 13:22:41 | Re: Sequence Access Method WIP |
Previous Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2016-03-30 13:21:24 | Re: WIP: Access method extendability |