| From: | "Dian Fay" <di(at)nmfay(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim Nasby" <jim(dot)nasby(at)gmail(dot)com>, "jian he" <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: add function argument names to regex* functions. |
| Date: | 2024-01-03 23:05:47 |
| Message-ID: | CY5G4TAMVX32.23TH6LFF93ATZ@nmfay.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Another possibility is `index`, which is relatively short and not a
> > reserved keyword ^1. `position` is not as precise but would avoid the
> > conceptual overloading of ordinary indices.
>
> I'm not a fan of "index" since that leaves the question of
> whether it's 0 or 1 based. "Position" is a bit better, but I think
> Jian's suggestion of "occurance" is best.
We do have precedent for one-based `index` in Postgres: array types are
1-indexed by default! "Occurrence" removes that ambiguity but it's long
and easy to misspell (I looked it up after typing it just now and it
_still_ feels off).
How's "instance"?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2024-01-03 23:15:11 | Re: Extension Enhancement: Buffer Invalidation in pg_buffercache |
| Previous Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2024-01-03 23:02:13 | Re: Reducing output size of nodeToString |