Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rjm9m-007lif-UL for pgsql-committers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 20:21:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rjm9l-000aRw-0q for pgsql-committers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 20:21:57 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rjm9k-000aRo-QE for pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 20:21:57 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rjm9i-003zsd-Hi for pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 20:21:56 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 42BKLqxX1548560; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 16:21:52 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Jeff Davis cc: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: pgsql: Catalog changes preparing for builtin collation provider. In-reply-to: <1547879.1710188139@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <8899c7c62b86370076110920686fd24863b69a01.camel@j-davis.com> <1222780.1710047108@sss.pgh.pa.us> <0ef325fa06e7a1605c4e119c4ecb637c67e5fb4e.camel@j-davis.com> <1547879.1710188139@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane message dated "Mon, 11 Mar 2024 16:15:39 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1548558.1710188512.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 16:21:52 -0400 Message-ID: <1548559.1710188512@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk I wrote: > Jeff Davis writes: >> That's so bizarre that I have to guess that it's a perl bug. > I agree. Oh! No, it's a "feature": man perlop quoth The empty pattern "//" If the PATTERN evaluates to the empty string, the last successfully matched regular expression is used instead. In this case, only the "g" and "c" flags on the empty pattern are honored; the other flags are taken from the original pattern. If no match has previously succeeded, this will (silently) act instead as a genuine empty pattern (which will always match). So we actually need to find and nuke all of these, not just the one that's causing trouble. regards, tom lane