pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Chapman Flack <jcflack@acm.org>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Cc: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Cc: Dian Fay <di@nmfay.com>
Cc: Jim Nasby <jim.nasby@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: add function argument names to regex* functions.
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 16:28:35 -0400
Message-ID: <66451AF3.3090302@acm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoZ2iH5qZ8HOro1W37V7wP+K3cNEv8+AaDBnBZJsfX8BKg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACJufxG3NFKKsh6x4fRLv8h3V-HvN4W5dA=zNKMxsNcDwOKang@mail.gmail.com>
	<CY5G4TAMVX32.23TH6LFF93ATZ@nmfay.com>
	<75129a34-14da-48aa-9906-42062fe78664@gmail.com>
	<CACJufxHBx+AHGVJocDSD-PbX0z32vJR9eEUhB+vsJHbjwnXNcg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CY8WQVZ0PK1B.19QRO61WBALCP@nmfay.com>
	<CACJufxHTw22kOmmDBpubmju9bfFhonEekwf0s6LGvysbnWEg9Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CY9RIU0NZPAE.XZOBLKSFPZZB@nmfay.com>
	<CACJufxHqg0xqq=OdfN8Pf0C_hvEf0OSXik_3Yr0-QTAFUuHG=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<f2b5ab0d-324c-4ba9-959e-67420bac7738@eisentraut.org>
	<CACJufxHZuQF8RkHHd83sqAeFvWfbvBysUxzRarAOeYuCi=tTmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<1763682.1712090733@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CACJufxGpgsQgnRvcPLczTV1Ak=JS0LmHxWe4q4dv6Qd1tRkQ9A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+TgmoZYDN7BEQzpanKVvjEK48cn7Rq95_jjn=wTe2gM4-2J5w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKFQuwZcJFkmuMHPKnsRhgCx3=WdtSS3T0D+WAEXA7PdYH4ZJg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+Tgmoa7tLgrP1bmeWFJFzVeaAYwi6hcSrsjnpQWLcz83SrWSA@mail.gmail.com>
	<66450B93.2070904@acm.org>
	<CA+TgmoZ2iH5qZ8HOro1W37V7wP+K3cNEv8+AaDBnBZJsfX8BKg@mail.gmail.com>

On 05/15/24 15:31, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 3:23 PM Chapman Flack <jcflack@acm.org> wrote:
>> What would be wrong with [occurrence], for consistency's sake?
> 
> It was proposed and rejected upthread, but that's not to say that I
> necessarily endorse the reasons given.

Apologies for not having read far enough up the thread before replying.

Having done so now, I guess I'd just offer one small point: the upthread
discussion did mention that 'occurrence' was used by Oracle, and asked
"if you're not following Oracle slavishly, exactly what is the argument
in its favor?".

Nothing else upthread seems to have mentioned that OCCURRENCE is the
exact keyword used in ISO SQL for the analogous argument in analogous
functions. Maybe that won't have any effect on the outcome either, but
it does seem worth getting into the thread.

Regards,
-Chap





view thread (48+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <66451AF3.3090302@acm.org>
Permalink:  ../66451AF3.3090302@acm.org/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/66451AF3.3090302@acm.org

 · 

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: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: jcflack@acm.org, robertmhaas@gmail.com, david.g.johnston@gmail.com, jian.universality@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, peter@eisentraut.org, di@nmfay.com, jim.nasby@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: add function argument names to regex* functions.
  In-Reply-To: <66451AF3.3090302@acm.org>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox