On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Why is there a variadic replace() in this patch at all? It seems just >>> about entirely unrelated to the stated purpose of the patch, as well >>> as being of dubious usefulness. When would it be superior to >>> replace(replace(orig, from1, to1), from2, to2), ... > >> An iterated replacement has different semantics from a simultaneous >> replace - replacing N placeholders with values simultaneously means >> you don't need to worry about the case where one of the replacement >> strings contains something that looks like a placeholder. > > Good point, but what the patch implements is in fact iterated > replacement ... or at least it looked that way in a quick once-over.
Oh. Well, -1 from me for including that. >> I actually >> think a simultaneous replacement feature would be quite handy but I >> make no comment on whether it belongs as part of this patch. > > My point is that the replacement stuff really really needs to be > factored out of the string-execution stuff, precisely because the > desired behavior is debatable. +1 for committing the uncontroversial parts separately. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
