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.
--
Artur Zakirov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company