Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
On the strength of this analysis, shouldn't we drop the separate
UTF8 match function and just use SB_MatchText for UTF8?

We still call NextChar() after "_", and I think we probably need to, don't we? If so we can't just marry the cases.

Doh, you're right ... but on third thought, what happens with a pattern
containing "%_"?  If % tries to advance bytewise then we'll be trying to
apply NextChar in the middle of a data character, and bad things ensue.

I think we need to go back to the scheme with SB_ and MB_ variants and
no special case for UTF8.


My head is spinning with all these variants. I'll look at ti tomorrow.



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to