Re: [pg_trgm] Making similarity(?, ?) < ? use an index

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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