Re: Re: LIKE gripes

> > > I think I have a solution for the current code; could someone test its
> > > behavior with MB enabled? It is now committed to the source tree; I know
> > > it compiles, but afaik am not equipped to test it :(
> > It passed the MB test, but fails the string test. Yes, I know it fails
> > becasue ILIKE for MB is not implemented (yet). I'm looking forward to
> > implement the missing part. Is it ok for you, Thomas?
>
> Whew! I'm glad "fails the string test" is because of the ILIKE/tolower()
> issue; I was afraid you would say "... because Thomas' bad code dumps
> core..." :)
>
> Yes, feel free to implement the missing parts. I'm not even sure how to
> do it! Do you think it would be best in the meantime to disable the
> ILIKE tests, or perhaps to separate that out into a different test?

Done. I have committed changes to like.c.

> > Please note that existing MB implementation does not need such an
> > extra conversion cost except some MB-aware-functions(text_length
> > etc.), regex, like and the input/output stage. Also MB stores native
> > encodings 'as is' onto the disk.
>
> Yes. I am probably getting a skewed view of MB since the LIKE code is an
> edge case which illustrates the difficulties in handling character sets
> in general no matter what solution is used.

This time I have slightly modified the way to support MB so that to
eliminate the up-to-4-times-memory-consuming-problem.

The regression test has passed (including the strings test)
with/without MB on Red Hat Linux 5.2. Tests on other platforms are
welcome.
--
Tatsuo Ishii