| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeremy Drake <pgsql(at)jdrake(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: writing new regexp functions |
| Date: | 2007-02-03 01:56:31 |
| Message-ID: | 26162.1170467791@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:
> I want to ask, should I break with following substring's precedent, and
> put the pattern first (as most people probably would expect), or should I
> break with perl's precedent and put the pattern second (to behave like
> substring)?
All of SQL's pattern match operators have the pattern on the right, so
my advice is to stick with that and try not to think about Perl ;-)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2007-02-03 02:03:13 | Re: writing new regexp functions |
| Previous Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2007-02-03 01:37:09 | Re: Referential Integrity and SHARE locks |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2007-02-03 02:03:13 | Re: writing new regexp functions |
| Previous Message | Jeremy Drake | 2007-02-03 00:59:54 | Re: writing new regexp functions |