Re: Doing better at HINTing an appropriate column within errorMissingColumn()

Alright, so let me summarize what I think are the next steps in
working towards getting this patch committed. I should produce a new
revision which:

* Uses default costings.

* Applies a generic final quality check that enforces a distance of no
greater than 50% of the total string size. (The use of default
costings removes any reason to continue to do this)

* Work through Robert's suggestions on other aspects that need work
[1], most of which I already agreed to.

What is unclear is whether or not I should continue to charge extra
for non-matching user supplied alias (and, I think more broadly,
consider multiple RTEs iff the user did use an alias) - Robert was
skeptical, but didn't seem to have made his mind up. I still think I
should cost things based on aliases, and consider multiple RTEs even
when the user supplied an alias (the penalty should just be a distance
of 1 and not 3, though, in light of other changes to the
weighing/costing). If I don't hear anything in the next day or two,
I'll more or less preserve aliases-related aspects of the patch.

Did I miss something else?

[1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoZLwzgyv=JAYfi6XfAK8OcBuTPYYhP5TbOqsS=YWVvzUw@mail.gmail.com
--
Peter Geoghegan