On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 02:28:38PM +0200, Erik Rijkers wrote:
> So, that gives information on two operators, and then gives one
> example query for each. Clearly, the second example was meant to
> illustrate a where-clause with the @? operator.
>
> Small change to prevent great confusion (I'll admit it took me far
> too long to understand this).
Once one guesses the definition of the table to use with the sample
data at disposal in the docs, it is easy to see that both queries
should return the same result, but the second one misses the shot and
is corrected as you say. So, applied.
My apologies for the delay.
--
Michael
