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
