From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Minor regexp bug |
Date: | 2015-11-07 15:12:49 |
Message-ID: | CAM-w4HO5BX4K_QHhr+dxnkvUhS4mJR919_oUUbqNKzXaNBaa-w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 2:32 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> What I'm wondering about is whether to back-patch this. It's possible
> that people have written patterns like this and not realized that they
> aren't doing quite what's expected. Getting a failure instead might not
> be desirable in a minor release. On the other hand, wrong answers are
> wrong answers.
I would say wrong answers are wrong answers. It's hard to believe
there are many people doing this but if they are they're certainly
expecting the look-ahead to actually test that it's looking at the
same thing as the capturing parens. It might even be something
security-critical like parsing an connection string or something like
that. I can't see it's doing people any favours to let their code
continue doing something unexpected to avoid new errors.
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Praveen M | 2015-11-07 15:21:41 | Need to print the raw_parse_tree in the Log file |
Previous Message | Vitaly Burovoy | 2015-11-07 14:47:17 | Extracting fields from 'infinity'::TIMESTAMP[TZ] |