From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: UTF8MatchText |
Date: | 2007-05-20 22:23:50 |
Message-ID: | 17738.1179699830@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> On the strength of this analysis, shouldn't we drop the separate
>> UTF8 match function and just use SB_MatchText for UTF8?
> We still call NextChar() after "_", and I think we probably need to,
> don't we? If so we can't just marry the cases.
Doh, you're right ... but on third thought, what happens with a pattern
containing "%_"? If % tries to advance bytewise then we'll be trying to
apply NextChar in the middle of a data character, and bad things ensue.
I think we need to go back to the scheme with SB_ and MB_ variants and
no special case for UTF8.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-05-20 22:43:37 | Re: UTF8MatchText |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-05-20 22:11:13 | Re: UTF8MatchText |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-05-20 22:43:37 | Re: UTF8MatchText |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-05-20 22:11:13 | Re: UTF8MatchText |