Re: soundex and metaphone

Tom Lane wrote:

>"Jonah H. Harris" <jharris(at)tvi(dot)edu> writes:
>
>
>>At a minimum I think we should support soundex in the core. I'm willing
>>to move soundex and metaphone into the backend. Does anyone see a
>>reason not to do so?
>>
>>
>
>Is it really ready for prime time? For one thing, a quick look shows no
>evidence of being multibyte-ready. There's a fair amount of cleanup of
>random private coding conventions (META_MALLOC!?) to be done too.
>
>Doug's point is valid: there's some actual work needed here, not just
>arguing to shove the code from point A to point B.
>
>
>
>

Well, META_MALLOC occurs in part of the code that he didn't ask for ...
it was inherited from the perl module code that I adapted to do double
metaphone. And a minimal wrapper suited my purposes at the time just fine.

But the point is well taken nevertheless.

cheers

andrew