Re: postgres_fdw hint messages
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: postgres_fdw hint messages |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 0fc339d4-3388-3849-4507-ef0fe0c783fa@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: postgres_fdw hint messages (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: postgres_fdw hint messages
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 03.09.22 06:30, Nathan Bossart wrote: > On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 10:06:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I think the distance limit of 5 is too loose though. I see that >> it accommodates examples like "passfile" for "password", which >> seems great at first glance; but it also allows fundamentally >> silly suggestions like "user" for "server" or "host" for "foo". >> We'd need something smarter than Levenshtein if we want to offer >> "passfile" for "password" without looking stupid on a whole lot >> of other cases --- those words seem close, but they are close >> semantically not textually. > > Yeah, it's really only useful for simple misspellings, but IMO even that is > rather handy. > > I noticed that the parse_relation.c stuff excludes matches where more than > half the characters are different, so I added that here and lowered the > distance limit to 4. This seems to prevent the silly suggestions (e.g., > "host" for "foo") while retaining the more believable ones (e.g., > "passfile" for "password"), at least for the small set of examples covered > in the tests. I think this code is compact enough and the hints it produces are reasonable, so I think we could go with it. I notice that for column misspellings, the hint is phrased "Perhaps you meant X." whereas here we have "Did you mean X?". Let's make that uniform.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: