NISHIYAMA Tomoaki <tomoa...@staff.kanazawa-u.ac.jp> writes: > I don't believe it is valid to ignore CJK characters above U+20000. > If it is used for names, it will be stored in the database. > If the behaviour is different from characters below U+FFFF, you will > get a bug report in meanwhile.
I am skeptical that there is enough usage of such things to justify slowing regexp operations down for everybody. Note that it's not only the initial probe of libc behavior that's at stake here --- the more character codes are treated as letters, the larger the DFA transition maps get and the more time it takes to build them. So I'm unexcited about just cranking up the loop limit in pg_ctype_get_cache. > On the other hand, it is ok if processing of characters above U+10000 > is very slow, as far as properly processed, because it is considered > rare. Yeah, it's conceivable that we could implement something whereby characters with codes above some cutoff point are handled via runtime calls to iswalpha() and friends, rather than being included in the statically-constructed DFA maps. The cutoff point could likely be a lot less than U+FFFF, too, thereby saving storage and map build time all round. However, that "we" above is the editorial "we". *I* am not going to do this. Somebody who actually has a need for it should step up. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers