| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeremy Drake <pgsql(at)jdrake(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: patch adding new regexp functions |
| Date: | 2007-02-15 16:57:09 |
| Message-ID: | 200702151757.10732.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On the other hand, I don't think it's impossible to have matches that
> start earlier than others in the string, but are actually found later
> (say, because they are a parentized expression that ends later). So
> giving the starting positions allows one to know where are they
> located, rather than where were they reported. (I don't really know
> if the matches are sorted before reporting though.)
I have no strong opinion about how matches are returned. Seeing the
definitional difficulties that you point out, it may be fine to return
them unordered. But then all "matches" functions should do that.
For the "split" functions, however, providing the order is clearly
important.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Saito | 2007-02-15 17:00:48 | Re: pg_restore fails with a custom backup file |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-02-15 16:38:59 | Re: pg_restore fails with a custom backup file |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2007-02-15 17:02:58 | Re: patch adding new regexp functions |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-02-15 16:01:47 | Re: Autovacuum launcher |