References: <k8vmbm$1fg$1@ger.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <k8vmbm$1fg$1@ger.gmane.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Message-Id: <E72D307E-D276-4FF6-8E05-8434C6370AB8@yahoo.com>
Cc: "pgsql-sql@postgresql.org" <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
From: David Johnston <polobo@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Using regexp_matches in the WHERE clause
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:22:08 -0500
To: Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-sql-owner@postgresql.org

On Nov 26, 2012, at 7:13, Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net> wrote:

>=20
> So I tried:
>=20
>   SELECT *
>   FROM some_table
>   WHERE regexp_matches(somecol, 'foobar') is not null;
>=20
> However that resulted in: ERROR: argument of WHERE must not return a set
>=20
> Hmm, even though an array is not a set I can partly see what the problem =
is
> (although given the really cool array implementation in PostgreSQL I was =
a bit surprised).
>=20

regex_matches returns a set because you can supply the "g" option to captur=
e all matches and each separate match returns its own record.  Even though =
only one record is ever returned without the "g" option the function itself=
 is the same and still is defined to return a set.

David J.

--=20
Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql