Re: [HACKERS] WIP: lookbehind constraints for our regexp engine

2015-10-17 Thread David G. Johnston
On Friday, October 16, 2015, Tom Lane wrote: > > Anyway, I'm not planning to do much more work on this right now, but > I thought I'd throw it out there just to let people know that this seems > within reach. I'm curious to know how many people care, and how much. > > +1 It's hard to quantify h

Re: [HACKERS] WIP: lookbehind constraints for our regexp engine

2015-10-17 Thread Thom Brown
On Oct 17, 2015 12:53 AM, "Tom Lane" wrote: > > I've occasionally heard complaints that our regex engine only has > lookahead constraints not lookbehind constraints, while Perl's for example > does have those. While I was fooling around with the other issues in that > code, I learned enough to re

[HACKERS] WIP: lookbehind constraints for our regexp engine

2015-10-16 Thread Tom Lane
I've occasionally heard complaints that our regex engine only has lookahead constraints not lookbehind constraints, while Perl's for example does have those. While I was fooling around with the other issues in that code, I learned enough to realize that it would not be that hard to implement such