From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Refactoring identifier checks to consistently use strcmp |
Date: | 2017-08-17 09:08:29 |
Message-ID: | DAF4FE90-5E53-4C22-AAC7-323E54FD173E@yesql.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 16 Aug 2017, at 17:51, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> writes:
>> This no longer works:
>
>> postgres=# CREATE TEXT SEARCH DICTIONARY public.simple_dict (
>> TEMPLATE = pg_catalog.simple,
>> "STOPWORds" = english
>> );
>> ERROR: unrecognized simple dictionary parameter: "STOPWORds"
>
>> In hindsight, perhaps we should always have been more strict about that
>> to begin wtih, but let's not break backwards-compatibility without a
>> better reason. I didn't thoroughly check all of the cases here, to see
>> if there are more like this.
>
> You have a point, but I'm not sure that this is such a bad compatibility
> break as to be a reason not to change things to be more consistent.
I agree with this, but I admittedly have no idea how common the above case
would be in the wild.
>> It'd be nice to have some kind of a rule on when pg_strcasecmp should be
>> used and when strcmp() is enough. Currently, by looking at the code, I
>> can't tell.
>
> My thought is that if we are looking at words that have been through the
> parser, then it should *always* be plain strcmp; we should expect that
> the parser already did the appropriate case-folding.
+1
> pg_strcasecmp would be appropriate, perhaps, if we're dealing with stuff
> that somehow came in without going through the parser.
In that case it would be up to the consumer of the data to handle required
case-folding for the expected input, so pg_strcasecmp or strcmp depending on
situation.
cheers ./daniel
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2017-08-17 09:15:46 | Re: why not parallel seq scan for slow functions |
Previous Message | Amit Khandekar | 2017-08-17 08:42:07 | Re: Parallel Append implementation |