Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > Well, I think the big question is whether we need to honor RFC 5322 > > (http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5322.txt). Wikipedia says these are > > all valid characters: > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mail_address > > > * Uppercase and lowercase English letters (a-z, A-Z) > > * Digits 0 to 9 > > * Characters ! # $ % & ' * + - / = ? ^ _ ` { | } ~ > > * Character . (dot, period, full stop) provided that it is not the > > first or last character, and provided also that it does not appear two > > or more times consecutively. > > That's an awful lot of special characters. For the RFC's purposes, > it's not hard to be flexible because in an email message there is > external context telling where to expect an address. I think if we > tried to allow all of those in email addresses in tsearch, we'd have > "email addresses" gobbling up a whole lot of adjacent text, to nobody's > benefit. > > I can see the case for adding "+" because that's fairly common as Alvaro > notes, but I think we should be very circumspect about going farther.
OK, I can add '+' using Teodor's patch as a guide, and document which characters we support, and that we don't support all of them. What about the binary upgrade issue? I am now worried that maybe we should back out the patch and just document our restrictions. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com PG East: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers