Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Wait a second ... I just thought of a counterexample that destroys the >> entire concept. Consider the pattern 'A__B', which clearly is supposed >> to match strings of four *characters*. With the proposed patch in >> place, it would match strings of four *bytes*. Which is not the correct >> behavior.
> From what I can see the code is quite careful about when it calls > NextByte vs NextChar, and after _ it calls NextChar. Except that the entire point of this patch is to dumb down NextChar to be the same as NextByte for UTF8 strings. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly