On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 12:02 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 5:03 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >
> > Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > > A french user recently complained that with an index created using
> > > gin_trgm_ops (or gist_trgm_ops), you can use the index with a clause
> > > like
> > > col LIKE 'something'
> > > but not
> > > col = 'something'
> >
> > Huh, I'd supposed we did that already.
> >
> > > even though both clauses are technically identical. That's clearly
> > > not a high priority thing to support, but looking at the code it seems
> > > to me that this could be achieved quite simply: just adding a new
> > > operator = in the opclass, with an operator strategy number that falls
> > > back doing exactly what LikeStrategyNumber is doing and that's it.
> > > There shouldn't be any wrong results, even using wildcards as the
> > > recheck will remove any incorrect one.
> >
> > I think you may be overoptimistic about being able to use the identical
> > code path without regard for LIKE wildcards; but certainly it should be
> > possible to do this with not a lot of new code. +1.
>
> Well, that's what I was thinking too, but I tried all the possible
> wildcard combinations I could think of and I couldn't find any case
> yielding wrong results. As far as I can see the index scans return at
> least all the required rows, and all extraneous rows are correctly
> removed either by heap recheck or index recheck.
>
> I'm attaching a patch POC pach with regression tests covering those
> combinations. I also found a typo in the 1.4--1.5 pg_trgm upgrade
> script, so I'm also attaching a patch for that.
Oops, I forgot to git-add the 1.5--1.6.sql upgrade script in the previous patch.