From: | Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Open 7.3 items |
Date: | 2002-08-14 07:45:47 |
Message-ID: | 20020814074546.GF61893@ninja1.internal |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > > > Well, they aren't separate fields so you can't ORDER BY domain. The dot
> > > > was used so it looks like a schema based on dbname.
>
> IMHO it should look like an user in domain ;)
Agreed, but there is something to be said for doing a sort of users
per domain. This wouldn't be an issue, I don't think, if there was a
split_before() and split_after() like functions.
# SELECT split_before('user(at)domain(dot)com','@'), split_after('user(at)domain(dot)com', '@');
?column? | ?column?
----------+------------
user | domain.com
What would you guys say to submissions for a patch that would add the
function listed above? Maybe just a function called get_user(text)
and get_domain(text)? ::shrug:: Just some thoughts since there is
validity to being able to parse/operate on this data efficiently. If
those functions existed, then I think everyone would be able to have
their pie as they want it. -sc
--
Sean Chittenden
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-08-14 08:31:28 | contrib Makefiles |
Previous Message | Oliver Elphick | 2002-08-14 06:51:38 | anoncvs - here we go again! |