Re: unaccent contrib

From: Daniel Vázquez <daniel2d2art(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: unaccent contrib
Date: 2011-09-22 15:39:09
Message-ID: CA+KJVfwVgngRQdEQV3L26BiCGXrRsR61XrHH0oxZH-kWmOrDKQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Before 9.x, how do unaccent full text searches ?
i

2011/9/21 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>

> Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> writes:
> > On 21-09-2011 13:28, Daniel Vázquez wrote:
> >> "unaccent" is compatible with postgresql 8.4 (but not is in their
> contrib
> >> version distribution)
>
> > No, it is not. AFAICS it is necessary to add some backend code that is
> not in 8.4.
>
> [ pokes at it ] Yeah, you are right. The version of unaccent that is
> in our source tree is a filtering dictionary, and therefore cannot
> possibly work with backends older than 9.0 (when the filtering
> dictionary feature was added).
>
> So I'm wondering where the OP read that it was compatible with 8.4.
> Our own documentation about it certainly does not say that. It's
> possible that Oleg and Teodor had some prototype version, different
> from what got committed to our tree, that would work in 8.4.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>

--
Daniel Vázquez
SICONET (A Bull Group Company)
Torre Agbar. Avda. Diagonal, 211 - planta 23
08018 - Barcelona
telf: + 34 93 2272727 (Ext. 2952)
fax: + 34 93 2272728
www.bull.es - www.siconet.es
daniel(dot)vazquez(at)bull(dot)es

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2011-09-22 15:44:44 Re: Online base backup from the hot-standby
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-09-22 15:31:36 Re: memory barriers (was: Yes, WaitLatch is vulnerable to weak-memory-ordering bugs)