Re: \dn [PATTERN] handling not quite right...
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: \dn [PATTERN] handling not quite right... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 8521.1079392233@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | \dn [PATTERN] handling not quite right... (Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: \dn [PATTERN] handling not quite right...
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org> writes: > I haven't looked in great detail into why this is happpening, but it > seems as though processNamePattern() doesn't handle ?'s correctly in > the negative lookahead context correctly. Negative lookahead context!? You are several sigmas beyond the subset of regex functionality that \d and friends are intended to support. Given that we're defining * and ? as shell-style wildcards, it's not going to be feasible to handle very much of ordinary regex usage let alone advanced. > The more I think about this, a leading pipe could be used > to pipe the output to a utility, so that \dn | egrep -v '(log|shadow) > would work and would be the easiest solution. This on the other hand seems more like a potentially useful feature, although I'm unclear on what you expect to get sent through the pipe exactly --- you want column headers for instance? What if you're using a nondefault display layout? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: