On Fri, 2025-09-12 at 20:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I had not particularly studied the new charclass-parsing logic. > Looking at it now, this bit further down (lines 871ff) looks > fishy: > > if (pchar == ']' && charclass_start > 2) > charclass_depth--; > else if (pchar == '[') > charclass_depth++; > > /* > * If there is a caret right after the opening bracket, it negates > * the character class, but a following closing bracket should > * still be treated as a normal character. That holds only for > * the first caret, so only the values 1 and 2 mean that closing > * brackets should be taken literally. > */ > if (pchar == '^') > charclass_start++; > else > charclass_start = 3; /* definitely past the start */ > > Should not we be setting charclass_start to 1 after incrementing > charclass_depth? What I call "charclass depth" is misleading, I am afraid. Really, it should be "bracket depth". Only the outermost pair of brackets starts an actual character class. Example: []abc[:digit:]] A caret or closing bracket right after the inner opening bracket wouldn't be a special character, and I think it would never be legal. Unfortunately, this is all pretty complicated. Perhaps s/charclass_depth/bracket_depth/ would be a good idea. Yours, Laurenz Albe
