| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gilles Darold <gilles(at)darold(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, 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: | 2021-12-20 09:43:20 |
| Message-ID: | 81423aa1-154f-7cc7-5709-d6c040261ceb@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 15.12.21 14:15, Gilles Darold wrote:
> Le 15/12/2021 à 13:41, Peter Eisentraut a écrit :
>> On 03.08.21 19:10, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Gilles Darold <gilles(at)darold(dot)net> writes:
>>>> Sorry I have missed that, but I'm fine with this implemenation so let's
>>>> keep the v6 version of the patch and drop this one.
>>>
>>> Pushed, then. There's still lots of time to tweak the behavior of
>>> course.
>>
>> I have a documentation follow-up to this. It seems that these new
>> functions are almost a de facto standard, whereas the SQL-standard
>> functions are not implemented anywhere. I propose the attached patch
>> to update the subsection in the pattern-matching section to give more
>> detail on this and suggest equivalent functions among these newly
>> added ones. What do you think?
>
>
> I'm in favor to apply your changes to documentation. It is a good thing
> to precise the relation between this implementation of the regex_*
> functions and the SQL stardard.
ok, done
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-12-20 10:29:59 | Re: row filtering for logical replication |
| Previous Message | osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com | 2021-12-20 09:40:19 | RE: Failed transaction statistics to measure the logical replication progress |