On Jan 28, 2010, at 23:21 , Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I think the reason for this is that the first * is greedy and thus the
entire expression is considered greedy. The fact that you've made the
second * non-greedy does not ungreedify the RE ... Note the docs say:
The above rules associate greediness attributes not only with
individual quantified atoms, but with branches and entire REs
that contain quantified atoms. What that means is that the
matching is done in such a way that the branch, or whole RE,
matches the longest or shortest possible substring as a whole.
Interesting. Thanks for pointing out this section of the docs. I
wasn't aware of this twist.
It's late here so I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for:
I'm not actually looking for a regexp that works: I was able to
accomplish the task I had at hand with a different regexp. I'm just
reporting the particular unexpected nastiness we ran into. :)
Michael Glaesemann
michael.glaesem...@myyearbook.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
