Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> writes:
> I don't know if this would even be appropriate as an addition to
> pg_trgm. We might want to fork that code instead. That would be a
> shame, because the underlying c code would be the fundamentally the
> same, but the alternative would be to force people who like % and
> set_limit() to carry around the baggage of new operators and types
> they have no interest in using, and vice versa. True, we did just add
> several new functions and operators to pg_trgm that many people will
> have no interest in, so maybe that is not a big deal.
It seems to me that the old-style and new-style operators could coexist
just fine; neither one ought to be a large increment of unsharable code.
(Granted, it might take some refactoring to make that so.) So I think
forking would be a bad approach.
regards, tom lane
