Jeremy Drake wrote: > In case you haven't noticed, I am rather averse to making this return > text[] because it is much easier in my experience to use the results > when returned in SETOF rather than text[],
The primary use case I know for string splitting is parsing comma/pipe/whatever separated fields into a row structure, and the way I see it your API proposal makes that exceptionally difficult. I don't know what your use case is, though. All of this is missing actual use cases. > While, if you > really really wanted a text[], you could use the (fully documented) > ARRAY(select resultstr from regexp_split(...) order by startpos) > construct. I think, however, that we should be providing simple primitives that can be combined into complex expressions rather than complex primitives that have to be dissected apart to get simple results. > > As for the regexp_matches() function, it seems to me that it > > returns too much information at once. What is the use case for > > getting all of prematch, fullmatch, matches, and postmatch in one > > call? > > It was requested by David Fetter: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-02/msg00056.php > > It was not horribly difficult to provide, and it seemed reasonable to > me. I have no need for them personally. David Fetter has also repeated failed to offer a use case for this, so I hesitate to accept this. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org