At 10:45 PM 8/5/2000, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > > What is ILIKE? afaik it is not in SQL9x, so is there any reason to have
> > > that rather than the full regular expression case-insensitive operator
> > > ("~*") we already have?
> > Just that a lot of people have asked for it, over and over again ...
> > see the archives ...
>I had thought it would be trivial to do ILIKE, but now I'm not sure how
>to handle the multi-byte case. It isn't sufficient to wrap the
>single-byte comparison arguments with tolower() is it??
>btw, do the archives have a full discussion of the correct syntax for
>this? I recall people asking for it, but since it is a non-standard
>feature what implementation example should I follow? What alternatives
>are there? Is "check the archives" sufficient to produce a complete
>design discussion? What thread??
I don't know... As far as syntax would go, I would follow the existing LIKE
operator, doing a case insensitive operation.
- Thomas Swan
- Graduate Student - Computer Science
- The University of Mississippi
- "People can be categorized into two fundamental
- groups, those that divide people into two groups
- and those that don't."
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Thomas Lockhart||Date: 2000-08-06 04:24:10|
|Subject: OK to remove operators for exp() and ln()|
|Previous:||From: Philip Warner||Date: 2000-08-06 04:12:38|
|Subject: Re: COALESCE implementation question |