Re: LIKE wildcards escaping problem - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Subject | Re: LIKE wildcards escaping problem |
Date | |
Msg-id | 46F7B06E.1070907@dunslane.net Whole thread Raw |
In response to | LIKE wildcards escaping problem (Thea <monika.morawiecka@gmail.com>) |
Responses |
Re: LIKE wildcards escaping problem
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
This is the wrong list to ask this question. This list is about development, not usage. Please ask on -general in future. I presume that where you have "/" you really mean "\". What version of postgres are you using? If you use a modern version with standard_conforming_strings on then you do not need to escape backslashes. cheers andrew Thea wrote: > Hello folks :) > > I am working on a system that is possible to configure to work with > several DBMSes, including PG. > > My problem is that PG behaves differently than other supported DBMSes > (MSSQL and MySQL) - when I'm passing a query containing LIKE phrase to > it, a double amount of '/' literals is needed to obtain expected > result. I do realize that this is caused by a parser 'collapsing' > double '/' to a single one. > I might not express this clearly, but - as I understand it - in > general result is that to find '/' literal in DB, '////' phrase is > needed ('////' is turned to '//' by a parser, and that is valid > expression for '/' literal in SQL itself). > > The problem is that I cannot really use ESCAPE clause - it would > require working on too many files. (there are about 6k files in this > project, changing most of them would be not only not feasible, but > also risky) > The problem is that there is a table with user names. Those can > contain '/' literal (if they are domain users for example.) And here I > hit the wall. Any search for username with '/' literal fails. > I've searched through postgres mailing lists and all feed I could > google out, and found some info about problem itself, but I was unable > to find a solution for it anywhere. > > Problem was addressed in following locations: > http://svr5.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/1999-07/msg00340.php > http://svr5.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/1999-03/msg00144.php > > But those posts are from 1999, and I did not find anything more up-to- > date. > Has anyone solved this problem? > Is there any configuration option in PG allowing to make it behave in > a more compliant way? > > I'd be more than happy to see something like Herouth Maoz suggested > in > http://svr5.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/1999-07/msg00340.php , namely > configuration option for PG, but I was unable to find it. > > Sorry if I messed something up... I'm really very confused with this > sftuff... > I will appreciate any help or explanation, if I missed something > important. > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > >
pgsql-hackers by date: