| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Ian Barwick <ian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
| Subject: | Re: Doing better at HINTing an appropriate column within errorMissingColumn() |
| Date: | 2014-06-17 21:36:14 |
| Message-ID: | 13236.1403040974@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> (2) If there are multiple columns with the same levenschtien distance,
> which one do you suggest? The current code picks a random one, which
> I'm OK with. The other option would be to list all of the columns.
I objected to that upthread. I don't think that picking a random one is
sane at all. Listing them all might be OK (I notice that that seems to be
what both bash and git do).
Another issue is whether to print only those having exactly the minimum
observed Levenshtein distance, or to print everything less than some
cutoff. The former approach seems to me to be placing a great deal of
faith in something that's only a heuristic.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-06-17 21:40:36 | Re: WAL replay bugs |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-06-17 21:35:54 | Re: Doing better at HINTing an appropriate column within errorMissingColumn() |