| From: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)compiler(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] regexp_positions ( string text, pattern text, flags text ) → setof int4range[] |
| Date: | 2021-03-08 18:29:11 |
| Message-ID: | 60466CF7.3080708@anastigmatix.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 03/08/21 12:30, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm inclined to think we should learn from that and provide equivalent
> variants regexp_position[s] right off the bat.
I think the s-free version is exactly the regexp_instr included in
the other concurrent proposal [1], which closely corresponds to the
ISO position_regex() except for the ISO one using XQuery regex syntax.
I gather from [1] that the name regexp_instr is chosen in solidarity
with other DBMSs that de facto have it. Would it be weirder to have the
singular form be regexp_instr and the plural be regexp_positions?
Or to diverge from the other systems' de facto convention and name
the singular form regexp_position? (Or the plural form regexp_instrs?
That sounds to me like a disassembler for regexps. Or regexps_instr,
like attorneys general? Never mind.)
Regards,
-Chap
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chapman Flack | 2021-03-08 18:30:59 | Re: [PATCH] regexp_positions ( string text, pattern text, flags text ) → setof int4range[] |
| Previous Message | Ibrar Ahmed | 2021-03-08 18:14:56 | Re: partial heap only tuples |