On 3/14/16 12:27 PM, Artur Zakirov wrote: > 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 >> objections? >> > > 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.
Since to only change in the latest patch is to documentation I have marked this "ready for committer". -- -David da...@pgmasters.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
