From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Navis <contact(at)gregnavis(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [pg_trgm] Making similarity(?, ?) < ? use an index |
Date: | 2016-06-04 19:49:13 |
Message-ID: | 31224.1465069753@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I don't know if this would even be appropriate as an addition to
> pg_trgm. We might want to fork that code instead. That would be a
> shame, because the underlying c code would be the fundamentally the
> same, but the alternative would be to force people who like % and
> set_limit() to carry around the baggage of new operators and types
> they have no interest in using, and vice versa. True, we did just add
> several new functions and operators to pg_trgm that many people will
> have no interest in, so maybe that is not a big deal.
It seems to me that the old-style and new-style operators could coexist
just fine; neither one ought to be a large increment of unsharable code.
(Granted, it might take some refactoring to make that so.) So I think
forking would be a bad approach.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | lifetronics | 2016-06-04 20:20:51 | Postgres Dropped DB have recovered files how to restore |
Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2016-06-04 18:48:10 | Re: [pg_trgm] Making similarity(?, ?) < ? use an index |