From: Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov
MauMau maumau...@gmail.com wrote:
For information, what kind of breakage would occur?
I imagined removing KEEPONLYALNUM would just accept
non-alphanumeric characters and cause no harm to those who use
only alphanumeric characters.
This would
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:07 AM, MauMau maumau...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for your explanation. Although I haven't understood it well yet, I'll
consider what you taught. And I'll
From: Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com
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
MauMau maumau...@gmail.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?
Yes, it will cause problems.
For information, what kind of breakage would occur?
I imagined removing KEEPONLYALNUM would
From: Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov
MauMau maumau...@gmail.com wrote:
For information, what kind of breakage would occur?
I imagined removing KEEPONLYALNUM would just accept
non-alphanumeric characters and cause no harm to those who use
only alphanumeric characters.
This would
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:07 AM, MauMau maumau...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for your explanation. Although I haven't understood it well yet, I'll
consider what you taught. And I'll consider if the tentative measure of
removing KEEPONLYALNUM is correct for someone who wants to use pg_trgm
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:07 AM, MauMau maumau...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for your explanation. Although I haven't understood it well yet, I'll
consider what you taught. And I'll consider if the tentative measure of
removing KEEPONLYALNUM is correct
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 9:10 PM, MauMau maumau...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
This question may be appropriate for pgsql-general, but let me ask here
because the only relevant discussion seems to have been done on
pgsql-hackers:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-09/msg00169.php
From: Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 9:10 PM, MauMau maumau...@gmail.com wrote:
This question may be appropriate for pgsql-general, but let me ask here
because the only relevant discussion seems to have been done on
pgsql-hackers:
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. IMHO
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
