Re: regexp_replace( , , , NULL ) returns null?

On 5/2/14, 8:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jim Nasby <jnasby(at)enova(dot)com> writes:
>> ISTM it’d be a lot better if it treated NULL flags the same as ‘’...
>
> In Oracle's universe that probably makes sense, but to me it's not
> sensible. Why should "unknown" flags produce a non-unknown result?

Only because they're more options than data.

> I find it hard to envision many use-cases where you wouldn't actually
> have the flags as a constant, anyway; they're too fundamental to the
> behavior of the function.

Unless you're wrapping this function; handling the case of the flags being optional becomes easier then.

(FWIW, I'm creating a version that accepts an array of search/replace arguments.)
--
Jim Nasby, Lead Data Architect (512) 569-9461