Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: writing new regexp functions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jeremy Drake <pgsql(at)jdrake(dot)com>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: writing new regexp functions
Date: 2007-02-03 01:56:31
Message-ID: 26162.1170467791@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
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 ;-)

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David FetterDate: 2007-02-03 02:03:13
Subject: Re: writing new regexp functions
Previous:From: Florian G. PflugDate: 2007-02-03 01:37:09
Subject: Re: Referential Integrity and SHARE locks

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: David FetterDate: 2007-02-03 02:03:13
Subject: Re: writing new regexp functions
Previous:From: Jeremy DrakeDate: 2007-02-03 00:59:54
Subject: Re: writing new regexp functions

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group