Re: [HACKERS] Please rename split(text,text,int) to splitpart
What do people think if this change? --- Hannu Krosing wrote: It seems that my last mail on this did not get through to the list ;( Please consider renaming the new builtin function split(text,text,int) to something else, perhaps split_part(text,text,int) (like date_part) The reason for this request is that 3 most popular scripting languages (perl, python, php) all have also a function with similar signature, but returning an array instead of single element and the (optional) third argument is limit (maximum number of splits to perform) I think that it would be good to have similar function in (some future release of) postgres, but if we now let in a function with same name and arguments but returning a single string instead an array of them, then we will need to invent a new and not so easy to recognise name for the real split function. Hannu ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Re: [HACKERS] Please rename split(text,text,int) to splitpart
I think it should be made. Don't force an initdb. Beta testers can run the update. 'split' is a pretty standard function these days... Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Momjian Sent: Wednesday, 11 September 2002 10:33 AM To: Hannu Krosing Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Please rename split(text,text,int) to splitpart What do people think if this change? -- - Hannu Krosing wrote: It seems that my last mail on this did not get through to the list ;( Please consider renaming the new builtin function split(text,text,int) to something else, perhaps split_part(text,text,int) (like date_part) The reason for this request is that 3 most popular scripting languages (perl, python, php) all have also a function with similar signature, but returning an array instead of single element and the (optional) third argument is limit (maximum number of splits to perform) I think that it would be good to have similar function in (some future release of) postgres, but if we now let in a function with same name and arguments but returning a single string instead an array of them, then we will need to invent a new and not so easy to recognise name for the real split function. Hannu ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] Please rename split(text,text,int) to splitpart
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: I think it should be made. Don't force an initdb. Beta testers can run the update. 'split' is a pretty standard function these days... Me too. Patch already sent in, including doc and regression test. And as I said, I'll take a TODO to create a 'split' which either returns an array or maybe as an SRF, so the behavior is more like people will be expecting. Joe ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [HACKERS] Please rename split(text,text,int) to splitpart
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What do people think if this change? I'm not thrilled about renaming the function without forcing an initdb ... but the alternatives seem worse. Okay by me if we do it. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] Please rename split(text,text,int) to splitpart
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What do people think if this change? I'm not thrilled about renaming the function without forcing an initdb ... but the alternatives seem worse. Okay by me if we do it. I am not either. How do you do the documentation when the function can be called two ways. I guess we can give the SQL query to fix it during beta2 _and_ add a regression test to make sure it is fix. That sounds like a plan. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [HACKERS] Please rename split(text,text,int) to splitpart
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am not either. How do you do the documentation when the function can be called two ways. You don't. There is only one supported name, so that's the only one you document. I guess we can give the SQL query to fix it during beta2 _and_ add a regression test to make sure it is fix. That sounds like a plan. That sounds like massive overkill. Just apply the patch. We don't need to institutionalize a regression test for this. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] Please rename split(text,text,int) to splitpart
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am not either. How do you do the documentation when the function can be called two ways. You don't. There is only one supported name, so that's the only one you document. I guess we can give the SQL query to fix it during beta2 _and_ add a regression test to make sure it is fix. That sounds like a plan. That sounds like massive overkill. Just apply the patch. We don't need to institutionalize a regression test for this. It would catch people who don't apply the patch. We could remove the test after 7.3. Just an idea. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Re: [HACKERS] Please rename split(text,text,int) to splitpart
Bruce Momjian wrote: Tom Lane wrote: That sounds like massive overkill. Just apply the patch. We don't need to institutionalize a regression test for this. It would catch people who don't apply the patch. We could remove the test after 7.3. Just an idea. The existing strings regression test will fail if the update patch isn't applied. Joe ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
[HACKERS] Please rename split(text,text,int) to splitpart
It seems that my last mail on this did not get through to the list ;( Please consider renaming the new builtin function split(text,text,int) to something else, perhaps split_part(text,text,int) (like date_part) The reason for this request is that 3 most popular scripting languages (perl, python, php) all have also a function with similar signature, but returning an array instead of single element and the (optional) third argument is limit (maximum number of splits to perform) I think that it would be good to have similar function in (some future release of) postgres, but if we now let in a function with same name and arguments but returning a single string instead an array of them, then we will need to invent a new and not so easy to recognise name for the real split function. Hannu ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [HACKERS] Please rename split(text,text,int) to splitpart
Hannu Krosing wrote: It seems that my last mail on this did not get through to the list ;( Please consider renaming the new builtin function split(text,text,int) to something else, perhaps split_part(text,text,int) (like date_part) The reason for this request is that 3 most popular scripting languages (perl, python, php) all have also a function with similar signature, but returning an array instead of single element and the (optional) third argument is limit (maximum number of splits to perform) I think that it would be good to have similar function in (some future release of) postgres, but if we now let in a function with same name and arguments but returning a single string instead an array of them, then we will need to invent a new and not so easy to recognise name for the real split function. This is a good point, and I'm not opposed to changing the name, but it is too bad your original email didn't get through before beta1 was rolled. The change would now require an initdb, which I know we were trying to avoid once beta started (although we could change it without *requiring* an initdb I suppose). I guess if we do end up needing an initdb for other reasons, we should make this change too. Any other opinions? Is split_part an acceptable name? Also, if we add a todo to produce a real split function that returns an array, similar to those languages, I'll take it for 7.4. Thanks, Joe ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
