Alright, so let me summarize what I think are the next steps in working towards getting this patch committed. I should produce a new revision which:
* Uses default costings. * Applies a generic final quality check that enforces a distance of no greater than 50% of the total string size. (The use of default costings removes any reason to continue to do this) * Work through Robert's suggestions on other aspects that need work [1], most of which I already agreed to. What is unclear is whether or not I should continue to charge extra for non-matching user supplied alias (and, I think more broadly, consider multiple RTEs iff the user did use an alias) - Robert was skeptical, but didn't seem to have made his mind up. I still think I should cost things based on aliases, and consider multiple RTEs even when the user supplied an alias (the penalty should just be a distance of 1 and not 3, though, in light of other changes to the weighing/costing). If I don't hear anything in the next day or two, I'll more or less preserve aliases-related aspects of the patch. Did I miss something else? [1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoZLwzgyv=JAYfi6XfAK8OcBuTPYYhP5TbOqsS=ywvv...@mail.gmail.com -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
