public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
To: jian he <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
Cc: Dian Fay <[email protected]>
Cc: Jim Nasby <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: add function argument names to regex* functions.
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2024 16:45:33 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACJufxHZuQF8RkHHd83sqAeFvWfbvBysUxzRarAOeYuCi=tTmg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACJufxG3NFKKsh6x4fRLv8h3V-HvN4W5dA=zNKMxsNcDwOKang@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CACJufxHeyc34PMx6OnWb-xoaMtj1Yoax1rM+71zkwCynvmVwdg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CACJufxHBx+AHGVJocDSD-PbX0z32vJR9eEUhB+vsJHbjwnXNcg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CACJufxHTw22kOmmDBpubmju9bfFhonEekwf0s6LGvysbnWEg9Q@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CACJufxHqg0xqq=OdfN8Pf0C_hvEf0OSXik_3Yr0-QTAFUuHG=Q@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CACJufxHZuQF8RkHHd83sqAeFvWfbvBysUxzRarAOeYuCi=tTmg@mail.gmail.com>
jian he <[email protected]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 4:17 PM Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Reading back through the discussion, I wasn't quite able to interpret
>> the resolution regarding Oracle compatibility. From the patch, it looks
>> like you chose not to adopt the parameter names from Oracle. Was that
>> your intention?
> per committee message:
> https://git.postgresql.org/cgit/postgresql.git/commit/?id=6424337073589476303b10f6d7cc74f501b8d9d7
> Even if the names are all the same, our function is still not the same
> as oracle.
The fact that there's minor discrepancies in the regex languages
doesn't seem to me to have a lot of bearing on whether we should
follow Oracle's choices of parameter names.
However, if we do follow Oracle, it seems like we should do that
consistently, which this patch doesn't. For instance, per [1]
Oracle calls the arguments of regex_substr
source_char,
pattern,
position,
occurrence,
match_param,
subexpr
while we have
string,
pattern,
start,
N,
flags,
subexpr
The patch proposes to replace "N" with "occurrence" but not touch
the other discrepancies, which seems to me to be a pretty poor
choice. "occurrence" is very long and difficult to spell correctly,
and if you're not following Oracle slavishly, exactly what is the
argument in its favor? I quite agree that Oracle's other choices
aren't improvements over ours, but neither is that one.
On the whole my inclination would be to stick to the names we have
in the documentation. There might be an argument for changing "N"
to something lower-case so you don't have to quote it; but if we do,
I'd go for, say, "count".
regards, tom lane
[1] https://docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/oracle-database/23/sqlrf/REGEXP_SUBSTR.html#GUID-2903904D...
view thread (16+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: add function argument names to regex* functions.
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox