Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Wait a second ... I just thought of a counterexample that destroys the
>> entire concept.  Consider the pattern 'A__B', which clearly is supposed
>> to match strings of four *characters*.  With the proposed patch in
>> place, it would match strings of four *bytes*.  Which is not the correct
>> behavior.

>  From what I can see the code is quite careful about when it calls 
> NextByte vs NextChar, and after _ it calls NextChar.

Except that the entire point of this patch is to dumb down NextChar to
be the same as NextByte for UTF8 strings.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to