Re: patch adding new regexp functions

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Jeremy Drake <pgsql(at)jdrake(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Mark Dilger <pgsql(at)markdilger(dot)com>
Subject: Re: patch adding new regexp functions
Date: 2007-02-18 17:32:41
Message-ID: 200702181832.43132.peter_e@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Jeremy Drake wrote:
> > As for the argument about array vs setof, I could see doing both to
> > end the argument of which one is really superior for any particular
> > problem.
>
> regexp_split(string text, pattern text[, flags text]) returns setof
> text
>
> regexp_split_array(string text, pattern text[. flags text[, limit
> int]]) returns text[]

Since you are not splitting an array but returning an array, I would
think that "regexp_split_to_array" would be better, and the other
should then be "regexp_split_to_table".

But why does the second one have a limit and the first one doesn't? Is
this because you rely on the LIMIT clause to do the same? Is there a
guarantee that LIMIT on a table function makes a consistent order?

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-02-18 17:35:58 Re: Plan invalidation design
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2007-02-18 16:58:24 Re: pgsql: Better fix for determining minimum and maximum int64 values that

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2007-02-18 18:00:43 Re: further bootstrap cleanup
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2007-02-18 17:26:54 Re: patch for contrib/xml2