On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 11:13:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> writes: > > Commit bb14050 said: > > - change order for tsquery, so, users, who has a btree index over > > tsquery, > > should reindex it > > We undid that in 1ec4c7c05, no?
Ah, looks that way. > > Commit 61d66c4 may or may not warrant pg_upgrade treatment: > > Fix support of digits in email/hostnames. > > The general theory about changes in text search parser and dictionary > behavior has always been that a reindex is not required, because that does > not invalidate the derived data in the same sort of way that changing, > say, btree sort order of a datatype would. At worst, searches for the > specifically affected words might fail to find relevant entries because > to_tsvector now produces a different list of lexemes than before (and > those new lexemes are not in the index, the old ones are). If the > affected set of words is sufficiently large and relevant to her use-case, > a user might judge that rebuilding derived tsvector data is worth her > trouble. But I am dubious that pg_upgrade should issue guidance > unconditionally telling people to do it. Most people probably aren't > going to have any noticeable amount of data that's affected by this change. > > If we did worry about this for 61d66c4, then for example the unaccent > changes would also be problematic, and probably the ispell changes too. > I'm inclined to just group all those things in the release notes and > provide text counseling users to think about how much those changes affect > their full-text data and whether rebuilding derived tsvectors would be > worth it. Fair. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
