On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 3:01 PM David G. Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think this confusion goes to show that replacing N with count doesn't work. > > "replace_at" comes to mind as a better name.
I do not agree with that at all. It shows that a literal search-and-replace changing N to count does not work, but it does not show that count is a bad name for the concept, and I don't think it is. I believe that if I were reading the documentation, count would be clearer to me than N, N would probably still be clear enough, and replace_at wouldn't be clear at all. I'd expect replace_at to be a character position or something, not an occurrence count. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
