| From: | Artur Zakirov <a(dot)zakirov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuzzy substring searching with the pg_trgm extension |
| Date: | 2016-03-14 16:27:34 |
| Message-ID: | 56E6E676.8060206@postgrespro.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 14.03.2016 18:48, David Steele wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> On 2/25/16 5:00 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
>> But, It doesn't sound like I am going to win that debate. Given that,
>> I don't think we need a different name for the function. I'm fine with
>> explaining the word-boundary subtlety in the documentation, and
>> keeping the function name itself simple.
>
> It's not clear to me if you are requesting more documentation here or
> stating that you are happy with it as-is. Care to elaborate?
>
> Other than that I think this patch looks to be ready for committer. Any
> objections?
>
There was some comments about the word-boundary subtlety. But I think it
was not enough.
I rephrased the explanation of word_similarity() and %>. It is better now.
But if it is not correct I can change the explanation.
--
Artur Zakirov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-pg_trgm_guc_v3.patch | text/x-patch | 9.0 KB |
| 0002-pg_trgm_word_v9.patch | text/x-patch | 114.9 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-03-14 16:30:33 | Re: [PATCH] Use correct types and limits for PL/Perl SPI query results |
| Previous Message | Anastasia Lubennikova | 2016-03-14 16:12:20 | Re: [PATCH] Integer overflow in timestamp[tz]_part() and date/time boundaries check |