Great. Thanks for refactoring it further and fixing other bugs in there (and making it more clean too)!
Regards, Ade On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 1:18 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I wrote: > > I'm inclined to back-patch this. Given how fuzzy the definition > > of gin_fuzzy_search_limit is, it seems unlikely that anyone would > > be depending on the current buggy behavior. > > And done. Thanks for the bug report and patch! > > regards, tom lane >
