| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeremy Drake <pgsql(at)jdrake(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, 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> |
| Subject: | Re: patch adding new regexp functions |
| Date: | 2007-02-17 19:43:14 |
| Message-ID: | 23596.1171741394@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Jeremy Drake <pgsql(at)jdrake(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So I'd vote against complicating the API in order to make special
>> provision for these results. I claim that all we need is a function
>> taking (string text, pattern text, flags text) and returning either
>> array of text or setof text
> For this function, it would be setof array of text, as the capture groups
> would definitely go in an array, but if you asked for global in the flags,
> there could be more than one match in the string.
Oh, right. And you could do a 2-D array if you wanted it all in one
blob (or a guarantee of order). So no need for record-returning functions?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2007-02-17 20:18:42 | Re: RFC: Temporal Extensions for PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-02-17 19:40:54 | Re: pg_restore fails with a custom backup file |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeremy Drake | 2007-02-18 00:10:20 | Re: patch adding new regexp functions |
| Previous Message | Jeremy Drake | 2007-02-17 19:32:58 | Re: patch adding new regexp functions |