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

Re: UTF8MatchText

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: UTF8MatchText
Date: 2007-05-17 18:16:51
Message-ID: 4800.1179425811@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Wait a second ... I just thought of a counterexample that destroys the
>> entire concept.  Consider the pattern 'A__B', which clearly is supposed
>> to match strings of four *characters*.  With the proposed patch in
>> place, it would match strings of four *bytes*.  Which is not the correct
>> behavior.

>  From what I can see the code is quite careful about when it calls 
> NextByte vs NextChar, and after _ it calls NextChar.

Except that the entire point of this patch is to dumb down NextChar to
be the same as NextByte for UTF8 strings.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2007-05-17 18:36:50
Subject: Re: UTF8MatchText
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2007-05-17 18:06:08
Subject: Re: UTF8MatchText

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2007-05-17 18:36:50
Subject: Re: UTF8MatchText
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2007-05-17 18:06:08
Subject: Re: UTF8MatchText

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