Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> You have to be on a first byte before you can meaningfully apply
>>> NextChar, and you have to use NextChar or else you don't count
>>> characters correctly (eg "__" must match 2 chars not 2 bytes).
>>>
>
>
>> Yes, I agree completely. However it looks to me like IsFirstByte will in
>> fact always be true when we get to call NextChar for matching "_" for UTF8.
>>
>
> If that's true, the patch is failing to achieve its goal of treating %
> bytewise ...
>
Let's back up. % processing works by looking for a place in the text
that might match what follows % in the pattern, and then calling itself
recursively. For UTF8, if what follows % is _, it does that search by
repeatedly calling NextChar - otherwise it calls NextByte. But if we're
not processing a wildcard we have to match an actual complete UTF8 char,
so the fact that we proceed byte-wise won't get us out of sync. whenever
we happen to encounter an _. We can't rely on that process for other
multi-byte charsets because the suffix of one char might be the prefix
of another, so we could get false matches. That can't happen with UTF8.
cheers
andrew
