| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | andrew(at)supernews(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: like/ilike improvements |
| Date: | 2007-05-24 00:36:17 |
| Message-ID: | 2120070574.11179974081549.JavaMail.mscott@spotone |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>> We should only be able to get out of step from the "%_" case, I believe,
>> so we should only need to do the first-byte test in that case (which is
>> in a different code path from the normal "_" case. Does that seem right?
>>
>
> At least put Assert(IsFirstByte()) in the main path.
>
> I'm a bit suspicious of the separate-path business anyway. Will it do
> the right thing with say "%%%_" ?
>
>
>
OK, Here is a patch that I am fairly confident does what's been
discussed, as summarised by Tom.
To answer Guillaume's question - it probably won't apply cleanly to 8.2
sources.
cheers
andrew
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| like.patch | text/x-patch | 26.4 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-05-24 02:40:41 | Article on 8.3 release on LWN.net |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-23 23:27:13 | Re: Possible to inline setof SQL UDFs? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-05-24 03:59:37 | Re: Concurrent psql patch |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-23 16:07:10 | Re: like/ilike improvements |