On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 5:18 AM, Alexey Chernyshov <a.chernys...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > Hi all,
Hi Alexey, I took a look at your patch. Builds fine here, and passes the new tests. I'm new to this code, so take my review with a grain of salt. > The attached patch introduces citext_pattern_ops for citext extension type > like text_pattern_ops for text type. Here are operators ~<~, ~<=~, ~>~, ~>=~ > combined into citext_pattern_ops operator class. These operators simply > compare underlying citext values as C strings with memcmp() function. Are there any cases where performing the str_tolower with the default collation, then comparing byte-by-byte, could backfire? The added test cases don't make use of any multibyte/accented characters, so it's not clear to me yet what *should* be happening in those cases. It also might be a good idea to add some test cases that compare strings of different lengths, to exercise all the paths in internal_citext_pattern_cmp(). > +-- test citext_pattern_cmp() function explicetily. Spelling nitpick in the new SQL: s/explicetily/explicitly . --Jacob -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers