Re: patch adding new regexp functions

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> 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".

OK

>
> 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?

Yes

> Is there a
> guarantee that LIMIT on a table function makes a consistent order?

Why wouldn't it?

--
When you are in it up to your ears, keep your mouth shut.