Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> David Fetter wrote:
>> Speaking of which, can we see about deprecating and removing this GUC?
>> I've yet to hear of anyone using a flavor other than the default.
> You have now. I have a client who sadly uses a non-default setting. And
> on 8.4, what is more.
How critical is it to them? It would be nice to get rid of that source
of variability.
It would be possible to keep using old-style regexes even without the
GUC, if they can interpose anything that can stick an "embedded options"
prefix on the pattern strings. See 9.7.3.4:
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/functions-matching.html
regards, tom lane
