On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 06:06:23PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > 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
Switching it to just embedded options solves the issue of leaving the feature in while cutting the surprises down for those not using it. :) The "embedded options" method is also doable by search-and-replace, as they only work in AREs, which such people wouldn't be using. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers