Matt Miller <mattm@epx.com> writes:
>>> I can attach a patch that supports [EXACT | NOEXACT].
>>
>> Somehow, proposing two new reserved words instead of one doesn't seem
>> very responsive to my gripe :-(.
> My intention was to introduce the idea that the current behavior should
> be changed, and to then suggest a path that eventually eliminates all
> the new reserved words.
Once you put 'em in, you can't ever really get rid of 'em :-( ... so I'd
prefer to investigate a path that doesn't use that syntax in the first
place.
regards, tom lane
