Re: Could regexp_matches be immutable?
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Could regexp_matches be immutable? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 7316.1255557983@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: Could regexp_matches be immutable? (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Could regexp_matches be immutable?
Re: Could regexp_matches be immutable? |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: