| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | Gilles Darold <gilles(at)darold(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] proposal for regexp_count, regexp_instr, regexp_substr and regexp_replace |
| Date: | 2021-08-03 13:39:50 |
| Message-ID: | 1702731.1627997990@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> writes:
> On 8/3/21 1:26 PM, Gilles Darold wrote:
>> Le 03/08/2021 à 11:45, Gilles Darold a écrit :
>>> Actually I just found that the regexp_like() function doesn't support
>>> the start parameter which is something we should support. I saw that
>>> Oracle do not support it but DB2 does and I think we should also
>>> support it. I will post a new version of the patch once it is done.
> +1
> I for one am in favor of this 'start'-argument addition. Slightly
> harder usage, but more precise manipulation.
As I said upthread, I am *not* in favor of making those DB2 additions.
We do not need to create ambiguities around those functions like the
one we have for regexp_replace. If Oracle doesn't have those options,
why do we need them?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Borisov | 2021-08-03 14:00:05 | Re: Parallel scan with SubTransGetTopmostTransaction assert coredump |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2021-08-03 13:33:28 | Re: slab allocator performance issues |