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

Re: \dn [PATTERN] handling not quite right...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org>
Cc: PostgreSQL Bugs List <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: \dn [PATTERN] handling not quite right...
Date: 2004-03-15 23:10:33
Message-ID: 8521.1079392233@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> writes:
> I haven't looked in great detail into why this is happpening, but it 
> seems as though processNamePattern() doesn't handle ?'s correctly in 
> the negative lookahead context correctly.

Negative lookahead context!?  You are several sigmas beyond the subset
of regex functionality that \d and friends are intended to support.
Given that we're defining * and ? as shell-style wildcards, it's not
going to be feasible to handle very much of ordinary regex usage let
alone advanced.

> The more I think about this, a leading pipe could be used 
> to pipe the output to a utility, so that \dn | egrep -v '(log|shadow)  
> would work and would be the easiest solution.

This on the other hand seems more like a potentially useful feature,
although I'm unclear on what you expect to get sent through the pipe
exactly --- you want column headers for instance?  What if you're using
a nondefault display layout?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Sean ChittendenDate: 2004-03-15 23:45:04
Subject: Re: \dn [PATTERN] handling not quite right...
Previous:From: Sean ChittendenDate: 2004-03-15 22:28:27
Subject: \dn [PATTERN] handling not quite right...

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