From: | Gilles Darold <gilles(at)migops(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] fix references to like_regex |
Date: | 2021-11-02 15:56:10 |
Message-ID: | e7990184-2619-3891-597f-58e6de780f6f@migops.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Le 02/11/2021 à 16:50, Tom Lane a écrit :
> Gilles Darold <gilles(at)migops(dot)com> writes:
>> Since we have the regexp_like operator I have found that there is two
>> references in the documentation about PostgreSQL lacking of LIKE_REGEX
>> implementation. Here is a patch to fix the documentation. I simply
>> remove the reference to non exist of LIKE_REGEX in PostgreSQL in chapter
>> "9.7.3.8 Differences from XQuery" And try to modify chapter "9.16.2.3.
>> SQL/JSON Regular Expressions" to mention the REGEXP_LIKE operator. For
>> the second fix there should be better wording.
> I don't think we should change these (yet). regexp_like() is *not*
> LIKE_REGEX, precisely because it's using a slightly different
> regular-expression language than what the spec calls for.
> At some point we may provide a skin for the regexp engine that
> duplicates the spec's definition, and then we can implement
> LIKE_REGEX for real.
Thanks for clarifying, I thought it was an oversight.
Regards
--
Gilles Darold
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2021-11-02 15:57:12 | Re: archive modules |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2021-11-02 15:55:23 | Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box? |