[HACKERS] text_pattern_ops and complex regexps

2009-05-06 Thread Stephen Frost
Greetings, I've run into an annoying issue which I would think could be handled better. Basically, indexes using text_pattern_ops don't work with some complex regexps even when they (imv anyway) could. I'm willing to believe I'm wrong about the potential to use them, or that my regexp

Re: [HACKERS] text_pattern_ops and complex regexps

2009-05-06 Thread Tom Lane
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes: I don't see why the last case can't use the index. The planner's understanding of regexps is far weaker than yours. (In particular, I think it's set up to abandon optimization if it sees | anywhere.) regards, tom lane -- Sent

Re: [HACKERS] text_pattern_ops and complex regexps

2009-05-06 Thread Stephen Frost
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes: I don't see why the last case can't use the index. The planner's understanding of regexps is far weaker than yours. (In particular, I think it's set up to abandon optimization if it sees | anywhere.)

Re: [HACKERS] text_pattern_ops and complex regexps

2009-05-06 Thread Tom Lane
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes: * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: (In particular, I think it's set up to abandon optimization if it sees | anywhere.) That's kind of what I figured from the empirical data. My hope was that it might be something which could be fixed. See

Re: [HACKERS] text_pattern_ops and complex regexps

2009-05-06 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes: Perhaps this is misguided but I would think that the regexp libraries might have some support for give me all anchored required text for this regexp which we could then use in the planner. I wouldn't see why. It's certainly worth

Re: [HACKERS] text_pattern_ops and complex regexps

2009-05-06 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes: I think changeable regex flavors turned out to be a bad idea. They can wreak all sorts of havoc. You change the setting, SIGHUP, and suddenly your application fails to work as expected. Maybe we should make that setting PGC_POSTMASTER (or

Re: [HACKERS] text_pattern_ops and complex regexps

2009-05-06 Thread David Fetter
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:10:49PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes: Perhaps this is misguided but I would think that the regexp libraries might have some support for give me all anchored required text for this regexp which we could

Re: [HACKERS] text_pattern_ops and complex regexps

2009-05-06 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Tom Lane wrote: Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes: I think changeable regex flavors turned out to be a bad idea. They can wreak all sorts of havoc. You change the setting, SIGHUP, and suddenly your application fails to work as expected. Maybe we should make that setting

Re: [HACKERS] text_pattern_ops and complex regexps

2009-05-06 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes: ... Maybe we should make that setting PGC_POSTMASTER (or just get rid of it?), and provide was to pass flags to change the flavor for particular operations (this is easy for function-based stuff but not so easy for operators). BTW, if you are

Re: [HACKERS] text_pattern_ops and complex regexps

2009-05-06 Thread Stephen Frost
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: If we think there aren't any of those anymore, let's just kill the GUC and be done with it. +1. I'll try to spend some time in backend/regexp and regex_fixed_prefix soon. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital

Re: [HACKERS] text_pattern_ops and complex regexps

2009-05-06 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes: I think changeable regex flavors turned out to be a bad idea. They can wreak all sorts of havoc. You change the setting, SIGHUP, and suddenly your application fails to work as expected. Maybe we should make that setting

Re: [HACKERS] text_pattern_ops and complex regexps

2009-05-06 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 15:55 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: I know of at least one significant client (OpenACS) that still apparently requires extended flavor. Removing the compatibility option would be a major pain point for some of my clients. PGC_POSTMASTER would be fine, though. Isn't

Re: [HACKERS] text_pattern_ops and complex regexps

2009-05-06 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Joshua D. Drake wrote: On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 15:55 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: I know of at least one significant client (OpenACS) that still apparently requires extended flavor. Removing the compatibility option would be a major pain point for some of my clients. PGC_POSTMASTER would

Re: [HACKERS] text_pattern_ops and complex regexps

2009-05-06 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 16:10 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Isn't that why we wouldn't remove it from back releases? My clients aren't going to be very happy if they can't upgrade because of this. Certainly. Nobody wants to make clients unhappy but for the good of the code man, for

Re: [HACKERS] text_pattern_ops and complex regexps

2009-05-06 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes: I know of at least one significant client (OpenACS) that still apparently requires extended flavor. Is this demonstrable, or just speculation? The incompatibilities between ARE mode and (legal) ERE patterns are pretty darn small.

Re: [HACKERS] text_pattern_ops and complex regexps

2009-05-06 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes: ... Maybe we should make that setting PGC_POSTMASTER (or just get rid of it?), Another thought here: if we do get persuaded that the regex_flavor GUC has to stay, we could eliminate it as a hazard for planning by changing its scope to

Re: [HACKERS] text_pattern_ops and complex regexps

2009-05-06 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes: I know of at least one significant client (OpenACS) that still apparently requires extended flavor. Is this demonstrable, or just speculation? The incompatibilities between ARE mode and (legal) ERE patterns are pretty darn

Re: [HACKERS] text_pattern_ops and complex regexps

2009-05-06 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes: Tom Lane wrote: Is this demonstrable, or just speculation? The incompatibilities between ARE mode and (legal) ERE patterns are pretty darn small. It's explicitly documented. Whether or not there is a good basis for the documentation I can't yet