Re: Standard REGEX functions

From: Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Standard REGEX functions
Date: 2022-12-18 23:15:46
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 12/18/22 15:24, Tom Lane wrote:
> Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> writes:
>> Are there any objections to me writing a patch to add SQL Standard
>> regular expression functions even though they call for XQuery and we
>> would use our own language?
> Yes. If we provide spec-defined syntax it should have spec-defined
> behavior. I really don't see the value of providing different
> syntactic sugar for functionality we already have, unless the point
> of it is to be spec-compliant, and what you suggest is exactly not
> that.

I was expecting this answer and I can't say I disagree with it.

> I recall having looked at the points of inconsistency (see

Oh sweet! I was not aware of that section.

> and thought that we could probably create an option flag for our regex
> engine that would address them, or at least get pretty close. It'd
> take some work though, especially for somebody who never looked at
> that code before.
Yeah. If I had the chops to do this, I would have tackled row pattern
recognition long ago.

I don't suppose project policy would allow us to use an external
library. I assume there is one out there that implements XQuery regular
Vik Fearing

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2022-12-18 23:30:18 Re: allow granting CLUSTER, REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW, and REINDEX
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2022-12-18 22:20:49 Re: New strategies for freezing, advancing relfrozenxid early