This is a minor gripe in the grand scheme of things, but I'm a little
annoyed that we accept standard SQL but then don't spit it back out.
For example:
```
EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF) SELECT * FROM pg_am WHERE amname LIKE '%t%';
QUERY PLAN
-----------------------------------
Seq Scan on pg_am
Filter: (amname ~~ '%t%'::text)
(2 rows)
```
Why don't we convert that back to LIKE? Sure, if someone actually typed
"~~" instead of "LIKE" then that wouldn't match what they wrote, but I
much prefer differing in that direction than the current one.
I am not advocating we attempt anything more complex such as "x ~>=~ 'y'
AND x ~<~ 'z'", just that we output SQL where feasible. I would like to
fiddle with this if there is consensus that a decent patch would be
accepted.
--
Vik Fearing