On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@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.
> On that topic, I think there's unanimous consensus against the design
> where equally-distant matches are treated differently based on whether
> they are in the same RTE or different RTEs. I think you need to
> change that if you want to get anywhere with this.
Alright. It wasn't as if I felt very strongly about it either way.
> On a related note,
> the use of the additional parameter AttrNumber closest[2] to
> searchRangeTableForCol() and of the additional parameters AttrNumber
> *matchedatt and int *distance to scanRTEForColumn() is less than
> self-documenting. I suggest creating a structure called something
> like FuzzyAttrMatchState and passing a pointer to it down to both
> functions.
Sure.
--
Peter Geoghegan
