Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: UTF8MatchText

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 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2007-05-20 22:43:37
Subject: Re: UTF8MatchText
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2007-05-20 22:11:13
Subject: Re: UTF8MatchText

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2007-05-20 22:43:37
Subject: Re: UTF8MatchText
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2007-05-20 22:11:13
Subject: Re: UTF8MatchText

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group