Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: > David Fetter wrote: >> Speaking of which, can we see about deprecating and removing this GUC? >> I've yet to hear of anyone using a flavor other than the default.
> You have now. I have a client who sadly uses a non-default setting. And > on 8.4, what is more. How critical is it to them? It would be nice to get rid of that source of variability. It would be possible to keep using old-style regexes even without the GUC, if they can interpose anything that can stick an "embedded options" prefix on the pattern strings. See 9.7.3.4: http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/functions-matching.html regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
