Dominique Devienne <[email protected]> writes:
>> This DOES look like a bug, no? I've done regexes for a long time,
>> and these two forms should be equivalent IMHO. --DD
Yeah, I agree it's busted. You can use EXPLAIN VERBOSE to see the
translated-to-POSIX pattern, and it's wrong:
regression=# explain verbose with t(v) as (values ('foo:bar'), ('foo/bar'),
('foo0bar'))
select v from t where v similar to 'foo[\d\w]_%';
QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------
Values Scan on "*VALUES*" (cost=0.00..0.05 rows=1 width=32)
Output: "*VALUES*".column1
Filter: ("*VALUES*".column1 ~ '^(?:foo[\d\w]_%)$'::text)
(3 rows)
The _ and % are not getting converted to their POSIX equivalents
("." and ".*"). Your other example still does that correctly:
regression=# explain verbose with t(v) as (values ('foo:bar'), ('foo/bar'),
('foo0bar'))
select v from t where v similar to 'foo[0-9a-zA-Z]_%';
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------
Values Scan on "*VALUES*" (cost=0.00..0.05 rows=1 width=32)
Output: "*VALUES*".column1
Filter: ("*VALUES*".column1 ~ '^(?:foo[0-9a-zA-Z]..*)$'::text)
(3 rows)
So e3ffc3e91 was at least one brick shy of a load.
regards, tom lane
