Re: Expected behaviour of \d in regexp with exponent numbers ?

From: Vick Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org>
To: pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Expected behaviour of \d in regexp with exponent numbers ?
Date: 2014-09-02 13:25:01
Message-ID: CALd+dceBmKQYd+ikQ-NRjf-FU3vxcKSYvXAj2=zOGZbo5fhVCQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I wonder whether this was a bad idea. I think it's unsurprising for the
> definition of "alphanumeric" to depend on locale, but I bet most people
> are not expecting \d to vary that way.

FWIW, tha Perl man page on unicode (perldoc perlunicode) says:

<quote>
It is worth stressing that there are several different sets of digits
in Unicode that are equivalent to 0-9 and are matchable by "\d" in a
regular expression. If they are used in a single language only, they
are in that language's "Script" and "Script_Extension". ...
</quote>

When working with Unicode/UTF8, I do not think it is safe to assume \d
matches only ASCII [0-9].

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Adrian Klaver 2014-09-02 14:00:26 Re: Re: Timezone difference between Oracle SYSDATE and PostgreSQL timestamp functions
Previous Message David G Johnston 2014-09-02 12:43:22 Re: copymanager question