On 15.03.2016 17:28, David Steele wrote:
> On 3/14/16 12:27 PM, Artur Zakirov wrote:
>> On 14.03.2016 18:48, David Steele wrote:
>>> Hi Jeff,
>>>
>>> On 2/25/16 5:00 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>>
>>>> But, It doesn't sound like I am going to win that debate. Given that,
>>>> I don't think we need a different name for the function. I'm fine with
>>>> explaining the word-boundary subtlety in the documentation, and
>>>> keeping the function name itself simple.
>>>
>>> It's not clear to me if you are requesting more documentation here or
>>> stating that you are happy with it as-is. Care to elaborate?
>>>
>>> Other than that I think this patch looks to be ready for committer. Any
>>> objections?
>>>
>>
>> There was some comments about the word-boundary subtlety. But I think it
>> was not enough.
>>
>> I rephrased the explanation of word_similarity() and %>. It is better now.
>>
>> But if it is not correct I can change the explanation.
>
> Since to only change in the latest patch is to documentation I have
> marked this "ready for committer".
>
Thank you!
--
Artur Zakirov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company