Tom Lane wrote:
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.
That's not what I see in (what I think is) the latest submission, which
includes this snippet:
+ /* Set up for utf8 characters */
+ #define CHAREQ(p1, p2) wchareq(p1, p2)
+ #define NextChar(p, plen) \
+ do { int __l = pg_utf_mblen(p); (p) +=__l; (plen) -=__l; } while (0)
+
+ /*
+ * UTF8MatchText -- specialized version of MBMatchText for UTF8
+ */
+ static int
+ UTF8MatchText(char *t, int tlen, char *p, int plen)
Am I looking at the wrong thing? This is from around April 9th I think.
cheers
andrew
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
