Great. Thanks for refactoring it further and fixing other bugs in there
(and making it more clean too)!
Regards,
Ade
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 1:18 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > I'm inclined to back-patch this. Given how fuzzy the definition
> > of gin_fuzzy_search_limit is, it seems
Hi, Tom. Thanks for taking a look.
> It seems like what you're actually trying
> to accomplish is to ensure that entryLoadMoreItems's "stepright" path
> is taken, instead of re-descending the index from the root.
What I was primarily trying to do is make sure that when entryLoadMoreItems
is
and also attached is a patch
I want to eventually submit to a commitfest.
Best regards,
Adé
gin_fuzzy_search_limit_test.sql
Description: Binary data
ginget.patch
Description: Binary data