On 07/18/2014 10:47 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 3:54 AM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote:
I am not opposed to moving the contrib code into core in the manner
that you oppose. I don't feel strongly either way.
I noticed in passing that your revision says this *within* levenshtein.c:
+ * Guaranteed to work with Name datatype's cstrings.
+ * For full details see levenshtein.c.
Yeah, I looked at what I produced yesterday night again and came
across a couple of similar things :) And reworked a couple of things
in the version attached, mainly wordsmithing and adding comments here
and there, as well as making the naming of the Levenshtein functions
in core the same as the ones in fuzzystrmatch 1.0.
I imagined that when a committer picked this up, an executive decision
would be made one way or the other. I am quite willing to revise the
patch to alter this behavior at the request of a committer.
Fine for me. I'll move this patch to the next stage then.
There are a bunch of compiler warnings:
parse_relation.c: In function ‘errorMissingColumn’:
parse_relation.c:3114:447: warning: ‘closestcol1’ may be used
uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
parse_relation.c:3066:8: note: ‘closestcol1’ was declared here
parse_relation.c:3129:29: warning: ‘closestcol2’ may be used
uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
parse_relation.c:3067:8: note: ‘closestcol2’ was declared here
levenshtein.c: In function ‘levenshtein_common’:
levenshtein.c:107:6: warning: unused variable ‘start_column_local’
[-Wunused-variable]
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
