Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I don't know if this would even be appropriate as an addition to > pg_trgm. We might want to fork that code instead. That would be a > shame, because the underlying c code would be the fundamentally the > same, but the alternative would be to force people who like % and > set_limit() to carry around the baggage of new operators and types > they have no interest in using, and vice versa. True, we did just add > several new functions and operators to pg_trgm that many people will > have no interest in, so maybe that is not a big deal. It seems to me that the old-style and new-style operators could coexist just fine; neither one ought to be a large increment of unsharable code. (Granted, it might take some refactoring to make that so.) So I think forking would be a bad approach. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
