|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>|
|Subject:||Re: Fuzzy substring searching with the pg_trgm extension|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
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
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.
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
|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|