|From:||Gilles Darold <gilles(at)darold(dot)net>|
|To:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Cc:||Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>, er(at)xs4all(dot)nl, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH] proposal for regexp_count, regexp_instr, regexp_substr and regexp_replace|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Le 30/07/2021 à 23:38, Tom Lane a écrit :
> Gilles Darold <gilles(at)darold(dot)net> writes:
>> Le 26/07/2021 à 21:56, Tom Lane a écrit :
>>> I'm inclined to just drop the regexp_replace additions. I don't think
>>> that the extra parameters Oracle provides here are especially useful.
>>> They're definitely not useful enough to justify creating compatibility
>>> hazards for.
>> I would not say that being able to replace the Nth occurrence of a
>> pattern matching is not useful but i agree that this is not a common
>> case with replacement. Both Oracle  and IBM DB2  propose this form
>> and I have though that we can not have compatibility issues because of
>> the different data type at the 4th parameter.
> Well, here's an example of the potential issues:
Thanks for pointing me this case, I did not think that the prepared
statement could lead to this confusion.
>> Anyway, maybe we can just
>> rename the function even if I would prefer that regexp_replace() be
>> extended. For example:
>> regexp_replace(source, pattern, replacement [, flags ]);
>> regexp_substitute(source, pattern, replacement [, position ] [,
>> occurrence ] [, flags ]);
> Hmm. Of course the entire selling point of this patch seems to be
> bug-compatibility with Oracle, so using different names is largely
> defeating the point :-(
> Maybe we should just hold our noses and do it. The point that
> you'd get a recognizable failure if the wrong function were chosen
> reassures me a little bit. We've seen a lot of cases where this
> sort of ambiguity results in the system just silently doing something
> different from what you expected, and I was afraid that that could
> happen here.
I join a new version of the patch that include a check of the option
parameter in the basic form of regexp_replace() and return an error in
PREPARE rr AS SELECT regexp_replace('healthy, wealthy, and
wise','(\w+)thy', '\1ish', $1);
ERROR: ambiguous use of the option parameter in regex_replace(),
HINT: you might set the occurrence parameter to force the use of
the extended form of regex_replace()
This is done by checking if the option parameter value is an integer and
throw the error in this case. I don't think of anything better.
|Next Message||Gilles Darold||2021-08-01 19:48:00||Re: [PATCH] proposal for regexp_count, regexp_instr, regexp_substr and regexp_replace|
|Previous Message||Tomas Vondra||2021-08-01 17:59:18||Re: slab allocator performance issues|