Joe Conway writes:
> On 11/07/2015 07:12 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 2:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> What I'm wondering about is whether to back-patch this.
>> I would say wrong answers are wrong answers.
> +1
Hearing no objections, done.
regards, tom
On 11/07/2015 07:12 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 2:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What I'm wondering about is whether to back-patch this. It's possible
>> that people have written patterns like this and not realized that they
>> aren't doing quite what's expected. Getting a failure
On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 2:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> What I'm wondering about is whether to back-patch this. It's possible
> that people have written patterns like this and not realized that they
> aren't doing quite what's expected. Getting a failure instead might not
> be desirable in a minor rel
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> What I'm wondering about is whether to back-patch this. It's possible
> that people have written patterns like this and not realized that they
> aren't doing quite what's expected. Getting a failure instead might not
> be desirable in a minor re
Happened across this while investigating something else ...
The regexp documentation says:
Lookahead and lookbehind constraints cannot contain back
references (see ),
and all parentheses within them are considered non-capturing.
This is true if you try a simple case, eg
regression=#
