On 05/15/24 15:07, Robert Haas wrote: > 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.
You've said the magic word. In the analogous (but XQuery-based) ISO standard regex functions, the argument that does that is identified with the keyword OCCURRENCE. What would be wrong with that, for consistency's sake? Regards, -Chap
