On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I agree with your proposed approach to moving Levenshtein into core. >> However, I think this should be separated into two patches, one of >> them moving the Levenshtein functionality into core, and the other >> adding the new treatment for missing column errors. If you can do >> that relatively soon, I'll make an effort to get the refactoring patch >> committed in the near future. Once that's done, we can focus in on >> the interesting part of the patch, which is the actual machinery for >> suggesting alternatives. > > Okay, thanks. I think I can do that fairly soon.
Attached patch moves the Levenshtein distance implementation into core. You're missing patch 2 of 2 here, because I have yet to incorporate your feedback on the HINT itself -- when I've done that, I'll post a newly rebased patch 2/2, with those items taken care of. As you pointed out, there is no reason to wait for that. -- Peter Geoghegan
.0001-Move-Levenshtein-distance-implementation-into-core.patch.swp
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
