On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 08:56:31PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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
> ;-)

Perl provides inspiration, but here, consistency would help more than
orderly imitation of how it does what it does.   And besides, when
people really need Perl, they can pull it in as a PL :)

Cheers,
D
-- 
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778        AIM: dfetter666
                              Skype: davidfetter

Remember to vote!

In response to

• Re: writing new regexp functions at 2007-02-03 01:56:31 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: [HACKERS] writing new regexp functions at 2007-02-03 03:01:33 from Jeremy Drake

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2007-02-03 02:08:56
	Subject: Re: Dirty pages in freelist cause WAL stuck
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2007-02-03 01:56:31
	Subject: Re: writing new regexp functions

pgsql-patches by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2007-02-03 02:44:27
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] unixware and --with-ldap
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2007-02-03 01:56:31
	Subject: Re: writing new regexp functions