Emre Hasegeli writes:
>> I did *not* push the hunk in citext.sgml, since that was alleging support
>> that doesn't actually exist in this patch. To make this work for citext,
>> we need to add wrapper functions similar to citext's wrappers for
>> regexp_matches. And that in turn means a citext e
> I did *not* push the hunk in citext.sgml, since that was alleging support
> that doesn't actually exist in this patch. To make this work for citext,
> we need to add wrapper functions similar to citext's wrappers for
> regexp_matches. And that in turn means a citext extension version bump,
> wh
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> I didn't compile either patch but given the scope and complexity I'd say it
> is ready for committer without that confirmed. Tom usually touches the
> regexp code and I'm pretty sure he'll look at this with an eye no one else
> has. Though I wouldn't expect anything
On Saturday, June 4, 2016, Emre Hasegeli wrote:
> > The main problem being solved is the use of a SETOF result. I'm
> inclined to
> > prefer that the final, single, result is still an array.
>
> I have changed it like that. New patch attached.
Good
>
> > I've got a style issue with the info
> The main problem being solved is the use of a SETOF result. I'm inclined to
> prefer that the final, single, result is still an array.
I have changed it like that. New patch attached.
> I've got a style issue with the information_schema - I like to call it
> useless-use-of-E'' - but that was
On 5/30/16 1:01 PM, Andrew Gierth wrote:
Returning an array containing the values of all capture groups might be
more useful (substring returns the value of the first capture group if
any, otherwise the matched string).
+1.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts
> "Emre" == Emre Hasegeli writes:
Emre> Attached patch adds regexp_match() function which is a simple
Emre> variant of regexp_matches() that doesn't return a set.
We already have a function that takes a string and a regexp and returns
a single text result: substring().
Regexp flags other
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Emre Hasegeli wrote:
> Attached patch adds regexp_match() function which is a simple variant of
> regexp_matches() that doesn't return a set. It is based on Tom Lane's
> comment to bug #10889 [1].
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/23769.1404747...@sss
Attached patch adds regexp_match() function which is a simple variant of
regexp_matches() that doesn't return a set. It is based on Tom Lane's
comment to bug #10889 [1].
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/23769.1404747...@sss.pgh.pa.us
From f8c113c77864ef1ca6386195aea02b2090ff17b6 Mon Sep
