Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> We should only be able to get out of step from the "%_" case, I believe,
>> so we should only need to do the first-byte test in that case (which is
>> in a different code path from the normal "_" case. Does that seem right?
> At least put Assert(IsFirstByte()) in the main path.
> I'm a bit suspicious of the separate-path business anyway. Will it do
> the right thing with say "%%%_" ?
OK, Here is a patch that I am fairly confident does what's been
discussed, as summarised by Tom.
To answer Guillaume's question - it probably won't apply cleanly to 8.2
Description: text/x-patch (26.4 KB)
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2007-05-24 02:40:41|
|Subject: Article on 8.3 release on LWN.net|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-05-23 23:27:13|
|Subject: Re: Possible to inline setof SQL UDFs? |
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2007-05-24 03:59:37|
|Subject: Re: Concurrent psql patch|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-05-23 16:07:10|
|Subject: Re: like/ilike improvements |