| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeremy Drake <pgsql(at)jdrake(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2007-02-16 12:19:55 |
| Message-ID: | 200702161319.56700.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Am Freitag, 16. Februar 2007 08:02 schrieb Jeremy Drake:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Does this version sufficiently address your concerns?
I don't think anyone asked for the start position and length in the result of
regexp_split(). The result should be an array of text. That is what Perl et
al. do.
As for the regexp_matches() function, it seems to me that it returns too much
information at once. What is the use case for getting all of prematch,
fullmatch, matches, and postmatch in one call?
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2007-02-16 13:44:18 | Re: Fixing insecure security definer functions |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-02-16 11:03:57 | Mail getting through? Short varlena headers |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-02-16 14:05:56 | Re: [GENERAL] ISO week dates |
| Previous Message | Jeremy Drake | 2007-02-16 07:02:33 | Re: patch adding new regexp functions |