Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
My head is spinning with all these variants. I'll look at ti tomorrow.
cheers
andrew
