From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Daniel Verite" <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Mixing greediness in regexp_matches |
Date: | 2019-12-23 15:15:40 |
Message-ID: | 28143.1577114140@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Daniel Verite" <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org> writes:
> The basic idea is to iterate on the rows produced by
> regexp_matches(string, '(.*?)(foo|bar|foobar)', 'g')
> to break down the string into pairs of (non-matching segment,
> matching segment) so that a final result can be assembled
> from that (setting aside the last non-matching segment, that
> can be retrieved in a final step).
> The difficulty is that the longest strings in the alternation
> should be prioritized, but the starting (.*?) makes the RE
> non-greedy so "foo" is choosen over "foobar".
I'd try forcing the match to be the whole string, ie
^(.*?)(foo|bar|foobar)(.*)$
which would also save some work for restarting the iteration,
since you'd have already captured the all-the-rest substring.
With the endpoints forced, it doesn't really matter whether
the engine deems the RE-as-a-whole to be greedy or not.
I think this would work without needing any explicit greediness
marking for the second and third parts, but I might be wrong
about that detail.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-12-23 15:26:15 | Re: Mixing greediness in regexp_matches |
Previous Message | Daniel Verite | 2019-12-23 14:56:47 | Mixing greediness in regexp_matches |