On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
