On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Euler Taveira <eu...@timbira.com> wrote: > On 09-05-2012 19:17, MauMau wrote: >> Then, does it make sense to remove "#define KEEPONLYALNUM" in 9.1.4? Would it >> cause any problems? If no, I wish that, because it eliminates the need to do >> the removal every time the users applies minor releases. >> > If you do so, you'll break minor versions.
Right. And removing KEEPONLYALNUM is a feature change rather than bug fix, so that should be proposed during major version development cycle. > IMHO the default is the desirable > behavior for almost all use cases (you are the first one that complain about > it). Really? I was thinking non-English users (including me) basicaly would not be satisfied with the default because they cannot use pg_trgm for N-gram full text search of non-English text. Though I agree some users would prefer the default. > Maybe in the future, we should be able to flip this flag without > rebuilding binaries. Agreed. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
