On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 3:37 AM PALAYRET Jacques
wrote:
> Hello,
> Thanks for your response.
>
> # Currently, I have a function text and a function array with *the same
> body* but a *distinct type return*.
> -> Example with the array of text function :
> SELECT public.calfxi3s_all_elements_text_a
On Fri, 2025-09-12 at 14:22 +0200, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 5:03 PM Dominique Devienne wrote:
> > OK with 16.9 and 17.5 (we cannot test on beta2 anymore)
> > KO with 16.10 and 17.6 (and beta3 too, released at the same time)
>
> I've tracked down the regression to this pa
On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 3:11 PM Dominique Devienne wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 2:45 PM Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > You don't show us that data that match the pattern in 17.5, but
> > not in 17.6. Unless you show us a counterexample, I'd say that
> > the behavior in 17.6 is correct.
I've reread
On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 3:24 PM Dominique Devienne wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 3:11 PM Dominique Devienne
> wrote:
> So I don't see how my `... where v similar to 'foo[\d\w]_%'` is incorrect.
> So again, is this a bug / regression or not? Thanks, --DD
If I use (x|y) instead of [xy] it see
On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 2:45 PM Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Fri, 2025-09-12 at 14:22 +0200, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 5:03 PM Dominique Devienne
> > wrote:
> > > OK with 16.9 and 17.5 (we cannot test on beta2 anymore)
> > > KO with 16.10 and 17.6 (and beta3 too, released
On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 3:29 PM Dominique Devienne wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 3:24 PM Dominique Devienne
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 3:11 PM Dominique Devienne
> > wrote:
>
> > So I don't see how my `... where v similar to 'foo[\d\w]_%'` is incorrect.
> > So again, is this a bug
On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 5:03 PM Dominique Devienne wrote:
> OK with 16.9 and 17.5 (we cannot test on beta2 anymore)
> KO with 16.10 and 17.6 (and beta3 too, released at the same time)
I've tracked down the regression to this particular query, FWIW:
select rolname, rolsuper, rolinherit, rolcreater
On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 3:54 PM jian he wrote:
> > > select v from t where v similar to 'foo[\d\w]_%';
> > > select v from t where v similar to 'foo[[[:digit:]][[:word:]]]_%';
> The above two examples are the same, per
> (Table 9.21. Regular Expression Class-Shorthand Escapes)
Of course.
> my g
Dominique Devienne writes:
>> This DOES look like a bug, no? I've done regexes for a long time,
>> and these two forms should be equivalent IMHO. --DD
Yeah, I agree it's busted. You can use EXPLAIN VERBOSE to see the
translated-to-POSIX pattern, and it's wrong:
regression=# explain verbose with
On 2025-Sep-12, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dominique Devienne writes:
> >> This DOES look like a bug, no? I've done regexes for a long time,
> >> and these two forms should be equivalent IMHO. --DD
>
> Yeah, I agree it's busted. You can use EXPLAIN VERBOSE to see the
> translated-to-POSIX pattern, and i
You, (Merlin Moncure) said:
> Technical discussions from the 80's are more or less historically interesting
> only.
I agree with your technical points - and the fact that I brought up "history".
I was replying to Justin in this context:
I wrote:
> AIUI, Michael Stonebraker suggested that the
On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 4:07 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Dominique Devienne writes:
> >> This DOES look like a bug, no? I've done regexes for a long time,
> >> and these two forms should be equivalent IMHO. --DD
>
> Yeah, I agree it's busted. You can use EXPLAIN VERBOSE to see the
> translated-to-POSIX
Laurenz Albe writes:
> On Fri, 2025-09-12 at 10:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The _ and % are not getting converted to their POSIX equivalents
>> ("." and ".*").
> Indeed, and I have to take the blame for introducing a bug in a minor
> release :^(
> The attached patch should fix the problem.
I ha
Laurenz Albe writes:
> On Fri, 2025-09-12 at 20:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Should not we be setting charclass_start to 1 after incrementing
>> charclass_depth?
> What I call "charclass depth" is misleading, I am afraid.
> Really, it should be "bracket depth". Only the outermost pair of bracket
On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 3:18 PM Ellen Allhatatlan <
ellenallhatat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You, (Merlin Moncure) said:
>
> > Technical discussions from the 80's are more or less historically
> interesting only.
>
> I agree with your technical points - and the fact that I brought up
> "history".
>
>
15 matches
Mail list logo
