Re: Less-silly selectivity for JSONB matching operators

Alexey Bashtanov <bashtanov@imap.cc> writes:
>> So that leaves us with needing
>> to find a better name for this new one.  Any ideas?

> I'm thinking of something wide like
> opersel, operjoinsel, DEFAULT_OPER_SEL
> or maybe even
> genericsel, genericjoinsel, DEFAULT_GENERIC_SEL

Seems a little *too* generic :-(

I was wondering about DEFAULT_MATCHING_SEL.  The difference in purpose
from DEFAULT_MATCH_SEL wouldn't be too obvious, but then it probably
wouldn't be anyway.

            regards, tom lane