On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Artur Zakirov <a.zaki...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > On 14.03.2016 18:48, David Steele wrote: >> >> Hi Jeff, >> >> On 2/25/16 5:00 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: >> >>> But, It doesn't sound like I am going to win that debate. Given that, >>> I don't think we need a different name for the function. I'm fine with >>> explaining the word-boundary subtlety in the documentation, and >>> keeping the function name itself simple. >> >> >> It's not clear to me if you are requesting more documentation here or >> stating that you are happy with it as-is. Care to elaborate? >> >> Other than that I think this patch looks to be ready for committer. Any >> objections? >> > > There was some comments about the word-boundary subtlety. But I think it was > not enough. > > I rephrased the explanation of word_similarity() and %>. It is better now. > > But if it is not correct I can change the explanation.
<% and <<-> are not documented at all. Is that a deliberate choice? Since they were added as convenience functions for the user, I think they really need to be in the user documentation. Also, the documentation should probably include <% and <<-> as the "parent" operators and use them in the examples, and only mention %> and <->> in passing, as the commutators. That is because <% and <<-> take their arguments in the same order as word_similarity does. It would be less confusing if the documentation and the examples didn't need to keep changing the argument orders. Cheers, Jeff -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
