Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> writes:
> I don't have any great ideas about what to do about this.
> Cybersquatting system facilities is a messy business, so maybe the
> proposed grotty solution is actually appropriate! We did bring this
> duelling Henry Spencers problem upon ourselves. Longer term,
> pg_regex_t seems to make a lot of sense, except IIUC we want to keep
> this code in sync with TCL so perhaps a configurable prefix could be
> done with macrology?
Yeah. I'd do pg_regex_t in a minute except that it'd break existing
extensions using our facilities. However, your mention of macrology
stirred an idea: could we have our regex/regex.h intentionally
#include the system regex.h and then do
#define regex_t pg_regex_t
? If that works, our struct is really pg_regex_t, but we don't have
to change any existing calling code. It might get a bit messy
undef'ing and redef'ing all the other macros in regex/regex.h, but
I think we could make it fly without any changes in other files.
regards, tom lane
