On 03/08/21 12:30, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm inclined to think we should learn from that and provide equivalent > variants regexp_position[s] right off the bat.
I think the s-free version is exactly the regexp_instr included in the other concurrent proposal [1], which closely corresponds to the ISO position_regex() except for the ISO one using XQuery regex syntax. I gather from [1] that the name regexp_instr is chosen in solidarity with other DBMSs that de facto have it. Would it be weirder to have the singular form be regexp_instr and the plural be regexp_positions? Or to diverge from the other systems' de facto convention and name the singular form regexp_position? (Or the plural form regexp_instrs? That sounds to me like a disassembler for regexps. Or regexps_instr, like attorneys general? Never mind.) Regards, -Chap
