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
