| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Rod Taylor <rod(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Could regexp_matches be immutable? |
| Date: | 2009-10-14 22:06:23 |
| Message-ID: | 7316.1255557983@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> David Fetter wrote:
>> Speaking of which, can we see about deprecating and removing this GUC?
>> I've yet to hear of anyone using a flavor other than the default.
> You have now. I have a client who sadly uses a non-default setting. And
> on 8.4, what is more.
How critical is it to them? It would be nice to get rid of that source
of variability.
It would be possible to keep using old-style regexes even without the
GUC, if they can interpose anything that can stick an "embedded options"
prefix on the pattern strings. See 9.7.3.4:
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/functions-matching.html
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-10-14 22:07:45 | Re: Rejecting weak passwords |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2009-10-14 22:02:24 | Re: Rejecting weak passwords |