Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Wait a second ... I just thought of a counterexample that destroys the
>> entire concept. Consider the pattern 'A__B', which clearly is supposed
>> to match strings of four *characters*. With the proposed patch in
>> place, it would match strings of four *bytes*. Which is not the correct
>> behavior.
> From what I can see the code is quite careful about when it calls
> NextByte vs NextChar, and after _ it calls NextChar.
Except that the entire point of this patch is to dumb down NextChar to
be the same as NextByte for UTF8 strings.
regards, tom lane
