| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Rod Taylor <rod(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Could regexp_matches be immutable? |
| Date: | 2009-10-15 02:13:57 |
| Message-ID: | 4AD68565.2000001@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>> David Fetter wrote:
>>
>>> Speaking of which, can we see about deprecating and removing this GUC?
>>> I've yet to hear of anyone using a flavor other than the default.
>>>
>
>
>> You have now. I have a client who sadly uses a non-default setting. And
>> on 8.4, what is more.
>>
>
> How critical is it to them? It would be nice to get rid of that source
> of variability.
>
> It would be possible to keep using old-style regexes even without the
> GUC, if they can interpose anything that can stick an "embedded options"
> prefix on the pattern strings. See 9.7.3.4:
> http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/functions-matching.html
>
>
>
They are probably quite open to changing it, but IIRC it is a setting
imposed by OpenACS, which is what they are based on.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-15 02:20:21 | Re: Could regexp_matches be immutable? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-10-15 02:13:29 | Re: Reworks for Access Control facilities (r2363) |