Re: The TODO List (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: The TODO List (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items)
Date
Msg-id 20578.1032405260@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: The TODO List (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items)  ("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>)
Responses Re: The TODO List (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items)  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Re: The TODO List (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items)  ("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> I'm in agreement with Thomas here ... unless a problem has been defined a
> bit more specifically then 'it isn't posix compliant', it shouldn't be
> considered an open item ... please remove?

A quick review of SQL99 says that their notion of SIMILAR TO patterns
is an unholy witches' brew: it does *both* common-or-garden regexp
expressions and LIKE patterns.  Specifically, I see these
metacharacters:
|        OR  (regexp-ish)
*        repeat 0 or more times  (regexp-ish)
+        repeat 1 or more times  (regexp-ish)
%        match any character sequence  (like LIKE)
_        match any one character  (like LIKE)
[...]        almost-but-not-quite-regexp-ish character class
(...)        grouping  (regexp-ish)

plus a just-like-LIKE treatment of a selectable escape character.

But the most important variation from common regex practice is that
(if I'm reading the spec correctly) the pattern must match to the
entire target string --- ie, it's effectively both left- and right-
anchored.  This is like LIKE patterns but utterly unlike common regexp
usage.

I could live with the fact that our regexp patterns don't implement all
of the spec-mandated metacharacters.  But I do not think we can ignore
the difference in anchoring behavior.  This is not a subset of the spec
behavior, it is just plain wrong.

I vote with Peter: we fix this or we disable it before 7.3 release.
It is not anywhere near spec compliant, and we will be doing no one
a favor by releasing it in the current state.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne"
Date:
Subject: Re: BLOB
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PGXLOG variable worthwhile?