On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Jeevan Chalke <
jeevan.cha...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Jeevan Chalke writes:
>> > Oops forgot patch.
>> > Attached now.
>>
>> Hmm ... I think the logic change is good, but two demerits for not fixing
>
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeevan Chalke writes:
> > Oops forgot patch.
> > Attached now.
>
> Hmm ... I think the logic change is good, but two demerits for not fixing
> the adjacent comment.
>
I had a look over comments and somehow I found that OK.
Anyway, updated comm
Jeevan Chalke writes:
> Oops forgot patch.
> Attached now.
Hmm ... I think the logic change is good, but two demerits for not fixing
the adjacent comment.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your su
Oops forgot patch.
Attached now.
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Jeevan Chalke <
jeevan.cha...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While playing with regular expression I found some strange behavior of
> regexp_matches() function.
>
> Consider following sql query and its output:
>
> postgres=#
Hi,
While playing with regular expression I found some strange behavior of
regexp_matches() function.
Consider following sql query and its output:
postgres=# select regexp_matches('1' || chr(10) || '2' || chr(10) || '3' ||
chr(10) || '4', '^', 'mg');
regexp_matches
{""}
{""}
