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.
So I'll test for this, but I think it's safe.
cheers
andrew