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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

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