Re: [HACKERS] Stopgap solution for ILIKE in multibyte encodings

2006-09-04 Thread Tom Lane
"Guillaume Smet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 9/4/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I propose that for ILIKE in multibyte encodings, we just pass the strings >> through lower() and then use the normal LIKE code. > Perhaps it's a stupid question but what about the indexes? An index on

Re: [HACKERS] Stopgap solution for ILIKE in multibyte encodings

2006-09-04 Thread Guillaume Smet
Tom, On 9/4/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I propose that for ILIKE in multibyte encodings, we just pass the strings through lower() and then use the normal LIKE code. This will be a bit slower than what we do now, but as a wise man once said, code can be arbitrarily fast if it needn't

[HACKERS] Stopgap solution for ILIKE in multibyte encodings

2006-09-04 Thread Tom Lane
I've gotten a little tired of reading reports that ILIKE doesn't work as expected in UTF8. The problem is that iwchareq() in like.c is several bricks shy of a load, as noticed e.g. here http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2005-10/msg1.php I looked a little bit at making iwchareq less br