From: | "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | "Jackson, DeJuan" <djackson(at)cpsgroup(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] SQL92 |
Date: | 1998-09-30 01:47:15 |
Message-ID: | 36118DA3.AFF74954@alumni.caltech.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Well, In all of the major Databases that I have worked with there is
> also the "[character_set]" matching operator.
> Does anybody know if the "[character_set]" stuff is part of the
> standard?
Hoping against hope, eh? afaik those are all extensions (though SQL3 has
some enhanced functionality with the SIMILAR operator). From my copy of
the second draft standard published in 1992:
<like predicate> uses the triadic operator LIKE (or the inverse,
NOT LIKE), operating on three character strings and returning
a Boolean. LIKE determines whether or not a character string
"matches" a given "pattern" (also a character string). The char-
acters '%' (percent) and '_' (underscore) have special meaning when
they occur in the pattern. The optional third argument is a charac-
ter string containing exactly one character, known as the "escape
character", for use when a percent or underscore is required in the
pattern without its special meaning.
What version of Postgres are you running? I vaguely recall some
complaints and fixes in the sort-of-recent past. Don't know if it
affected simple patterns or only more complicated stuff.
Can you send a simple
SELECT text 'your string here' LIKE 'your pattern here';
which doesn't behave as you would expect? That would make this a bit
less theoretical...
- Tom
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Meskes | 1998-09-30 05:47:44 | Re: Antwort: [HACKERS] ecpg parser |
Previous Message | Keith Parks | 1998-09-29 21:22:20 | Re: [HACKERS] PL/pgSQL in template1? |