| From: | Gilles Darold <gilles(at)darold(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] proposal for regexp_count, regexp_instr, regexp_substr and regexp_replace |
| Date: | 2021-12-15 13:15:04 |
| Message-ID: | 170bf229-0d4a-eaa1-4fb0-802442964474@darold.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Le 15/12/2021 à 13:41, Peter Eisentraut a écrit :
> On 03.08.21 19:10, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Gilles Darold <gilles(at)darold(dot)net> writes:
>>> Sorry I have missed that, but I'm fine with this implemenation so let's
>>> keep the v6 version of the patch and drop this one.
>>
>> Pushed, then. There's still lots of time to tweak the behavior of
>> course.
>
> I have a documentation follow-up to this. It seems that these new
> functions are almost a de facto standard, whereas the SQL-standard
> functions are not implemented anywhere. I propose the attached patch
> to update the subsection in the pattern-matching section to give more
> detail on this and suggest equivalent functions among these newly
> added ones. What do you think?
I'm in favor to apply your changes to documentation. It is a good thing
to precise the relation between this implementation of the regex_*
functions and the SQL stardard.
--
Gilles Darold
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-12-15 13:20:20 | Re: logical decoding and replication of sequences |
| Previous Message | vignesh C | 2021-12-15 12:51:44 | Re: Failed transaction statistics to measure the logical replication progress |