Tom Lane wrote:
>
> * At a pattern backslash, it applies CHAREQ() but then advances
> byte-by-byte over the matched characters (implicitly assuming that none
> of these bytes will look like the magic characters). While that works
> for backend-safe encodings, it seems a bit strange; you've already paid
> the price of determining the character length once, not to mention
> matching the bytes of the characters once, and then throw that knowledge
> away. I think BYTEEQ would make more sense in the backslash path.
>
Probably, although the use of CHAREQ is in the present code.
Is it legal to follow escape by anything other than _ % or escape?
>
> So the actual optimization here is that we do bytewise comparison and
> advancing, but only when we are either at the start of a character
> (on both sides, and the pattern char is not wildcard) or we are in the
> middle of a character (on both sides) and we've already proven that both
> sides matched for the previous byte(s) of the character.
>
I think that's correct.
> On the strength of this closer reading, I would say that the patch isn't
> relying on UTF8's first-byte-vs-not-first-byte property after all.
> All that it's relying on is that no MB character is a prefix of another
> one, which seems like a necessary property for any sane encoding; plus
> that characters are considered equal only if they're bytewise equal.
> So are we sure it doesn't work for non-UTF8 encodings? Maybe that
> earlier conclusion was based on a misunderstanding of what the patch
> really does.
>
>
>
Indeed.
One more thing - I'm thinking of rolling up the bytea matching routines
as well as the text routines to eliminate all the duplication of logic.
I can do it by a little type casting from bytea* to text* and back
again, or if that's not acceptable by some preprocessor magic. I think
the casting is likely to be safe enough in this case - I don't think a
null byte will hurt us anywhere in this code - and presumably the
varlena stuff is all the same. Does that sound reasonable?
cheers
andrew