From: | Thomas Swan <tswan(at)olemiss(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: LIKE/ESCAPE implementation |
Date: | 2000-08-06 04:14:52 |
Message-ID: | 4.3.2.7.2.20000805230131.02317390@sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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."
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-08-06 04:24:10 | OK to remove operators for exp() and ln() |
Previous Message | Philip Warner | 2000-08-06 04:12:38 | Re: COALESCE implementation question |