| From: | "Erik Rijkers" <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | spmpro(at)pochta(dot)ru, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #8679: Error in regex function |
| Date: | 2013-12-13 17:53:58 |
| Message-ID: | 1e4f6c4f59006753c3e00b77b9481147.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Fri, December 13, 2013 18:40, Tom Lane wrote:
> spmpro(at)pochta(dot)ru writes:
>> May be, regex construction (?<=\pattern\) is not support?
>
> It is not. What we support is documented at
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/functions-matching.html#FUNCTIONS-POSIX-REGEXP
>
> I have no idea what "(?<=" is supposed to mean --- it's not a standard
FWIW, perl has these; see http://perldoc.perl.org/perlre.html (search for "Look-Around Assertions" ):
(?<=pattern) A zero-width positive look-behind assertion
(?<!pattern) A zero-width negative look-behind assertion.
It would certainly be nice if these would implemented in postgres...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Maciek Sakrejda | 2013-12-13 18:52:43 | Re: BUG #8656: Duplicate data violating unique constraints |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-12-13 17:44:52 | Re: BUG #8681: column 'n_tup_del' of pg_stat_user_tables doesn't change in case of truncate |