On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> So my two cents is that when considering a qualified name, this patch
>> should take levenshtein distance across the two components equally.
>> There's no good reason to suppose that typos will attack one name
>> component more (nor less) than the other.
>
> Agreed (since it seems like folks are curious for the opinion's of
> mostly bystanders).
>
> +1 to the above for my part.
Okay, then. Attached patch implements this scheme. It is identical to
the previous revision, except that iff there was an alias specified
and that alias does not match the correct name (alias/table name) of
the RTE currently under consideration, we charge the distance between
the differing aliases rather than a fixed distance of 1.
--
Peter Geoghegan