On Tuesday 07 June 2005 10:57, David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:27:28PM +0900, Atsushi Ogawa wrote:
> > My idea is opposite. I think that the regexp_replace() should make
> > "replace all" a default. Because the replace() of pgsql replaces all
> > string, and regexp_replace() of oracle10g is also similar.
> I respectfully disagree.  Although Oracle does things this way, no
> other regular expression search and replace does.  Historically, you
> can find that "Oracle does it this way" is not a reason why we would
> do it.  Text editors, programming languages, etc., etc. do "replace
> the first" by default and "replace globally" only when told to.

You don't think it will be confusing to have a function called replace which 
replaces all occurrences and a function called regex_replace which only 
replaces the first occurance?  There's something to be said for consitancy 
within pgsql itself. 

Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to