Re: How portable are the POSIX.2 regular expression routines?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: How portable are the POSIX.2 regular expression routines? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 23737.1153183153@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: How portable are the POSIX.2 regular expression routines? (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Anyone have an opinion on the portability of the regular expression >> functions defined in POSIX 1003.2, > Does Windows come with POSIX regex libs? I would be a bit surprised. > When we discussed this at the conference I suggested to Magnus that he > not use regexes. When I did initdb I originally looked at using a regex > library, and realised that we really wouldn't need them, and the tiny > replacement routines I wrote would be sufficient. All we really need is something that can handle patterns including ".*", because that's all that is used in the patterns in "resultmap". That should be doable (inefficiently, but who cares) in just a few lines of code. I'll go for Plan B for the moment. > BTW, we I am pretty sure we *do* need MAX_CONNECTIONS it really > shouldn't be too hard to implement. Yeah, I thought the same --- you need it on a platform that won't let you run dozens of processes under one userid. Will take care of it. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: