Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> On the strength of this analysis, shouldn't we drop the separate
>> UTF8 match function and just use SB_MatchText for UTF8?
> We still call NextChar() after "_", and I think we probably need to,
> don't we? If so we can't just marry the cases.
Doh, you're right ... but on third thought, what happens with a pattern
containing "%_"? If % tries to advance bytewise then we'll be trying to
apply NextChar in the middle of a data character, and bad things ensue.
I think we need to go back to the scheme with SB_ and MB_ variants and
no special case for UTF8.
regards, tom lane
