From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] 'pgsql/src/backend/parser gram.y' |
Date: | 1999-06-07 15:06:07 |
Message-ID: | 24839.928767967@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Repair recently-introduced error in makeIndexable for LIKE:
>> a non-leading % would be put into the >=/<= patterns. Also, repair
>> longstanding confusion about whether %% means a literal %%. The SQL92
>> doesn't say any such thing, and textlike() knows that, but gram.y didn't.
> Houston, we have a problem. DoMatch has:
> case '%':
> /* %% is the same as % according to the SQL standard */
> /* Advance past all %'s */
> while (*p == '%')
> Don't we want %% to be %?
I looked at the spec, and this piece of code is right: there is nothing
in the spec that says that %% means anything other than two string
pattern matches (which of course has the same effect as one). So I made
gram.y agree.
It could be that people like Microsoft don't follow the spec... can
anyone check this?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-06-07 15:07:39 | Re: [HACKERS] Bug in LIKE ? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-06-07 14:58:55 | Re: [HACKERS] 6.6 items |