Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Add citext_pattern_ops to citext contrib module
От | Jacob Champion |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Add citext_pattern_ops to citext contrib module |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CABAq_6FRbMSPA8Z+=reZQtmFc2AycXcxztK=C4LJrRSy8mrn5g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | [HACKERS] [PATCH] Add citext_pattern_ops to citext contrib module (Alexey Chernyshov <a.chernyshov@postgrespro.ru>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 5:18 AM, Alexey Chernyshov <a.chernyshov@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > Hi all, Hi Alexey, I took a look at your patch. Builds fine here, and passes the new tests. I'm new to this code, so take my review with a grain of salt. > The attached patch introduces citext_pattern_ops for citext extension type > like text_pattern_ops for text type. Here are operators ~<~, ~<=~, ~>~, ~>=~ > combined into citext_pattern_ops operator class. These operators simply > compare underlying citext values as C strings with memcmp() function. Are there any cases where performing the str_tolower with the default collation, then comparing byte-by-byte, could backfire? The added test cases don't make use of any multibyte/accented characters, so it's not clear to me yet what *should* be happening in those cases. It also might be a good idea to add some test cases that compare strings of different lengths, to exercise all the paths in internal_citext_pattern_cmp(). > +-- test citext_pattern_cmp() function explicetily. Spelling nitpick in the new SQL: s/explicetily/explicitly . --Jacob
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: