Re: like/ilike improvements

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> We should only be able to get out of step from the "%_" case, I believe, 
> so we should only need to do the first-byte test in that case (which is 
> in a different code path from the normal "_" case. Does that seem right?

At least put Assert(IsFirstByte()) in the main path.

I'm a bit suspicious of the separate-path business anyway.  Will it do
the right thing with say "%%%_" ?
        regards, tom lane