Subject: Re: add function argument names to regex* functions.
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@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>
Cc: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>,
 jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
 Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, Dian Fay <di@nmfay.com>,
 Jim Nasby <jim.nasby@gmail.com>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
From: Chapman Flack <jcflack@acm.org>
Message-ID: <66451AF3.3090302@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 16:28:35 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+TgmoZ2iH5qZ8HOro1W37V7wP+K3cNEv8+AaDBnBZJsfX8BKg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/66451AF3.3090302%40acm.org>
Precedence: bulk

On 05/15/24 15:31, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 3:23=E2=80=AFPM Chapman Flack <jcflack@acm.org>=
 wrote:
>> What would be wrong with [occurrence], for consistency's sake?
>=20
> 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