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

Re: LIKE/ESCAPE implementation

From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Thomas Swan <tswan(at)olemiss(dot)edu>, Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: LIKE/ESCAPE implementation
Date: 2000-08-06 05:38:06
Message-ID: 398CF9BE.DE933A5D@alumni.caltech.edu (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> Not sure that it matters for multibyte, but for sure LOCALE ought to
> make a difference.  Consider German esstet (sp?) --- that beta-looking
> symbol that lowercases to "ss".  Do we do this correctly?

afaict we do none of this. Using tolower() on a char* variable can not
possibly do the right thing for multiple-byte character sets. Your
example (single byte to two bytes) can't work either.

Tatsuo and others: what is the state of MB for these cases? Should I
just code the single-byte LOCALE solution for now, or do we have some
other code I should be referring to?

                   - Thomas

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Stephan SzaboDate: 2000-08-06 17:29:19
Subject: Constraint stuff
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-08-06 05:03:09
Subject: Re: LIKE/ESCAPE implementation

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