From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jim Nasby <jnasby(at)enova(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: regexp_replace( , , , NULL ) returns null? |
Date: | 2014-05-03 01:57:10 |
Message-ID: | 1440.1399082230@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jim Nasby <jnasby(at)enova(dot)com> writes:
> Is there any particular reason for this:
> decibel(at)decina(dot)local=# SELECT regexp_replace( 'a', 'a', 'b', null ) IS NULL;
> ?column?
> ----------
> t
> (1 row)
Yeah: regexp_replace is strict.
> ISTM itd be a lot better if it treated NULL flags the same as ...
In Oracle's universe that probably makes sense, but to me it's not
sensible. Why should "unknown" flags produce a non-unknown result?
I find it hard to envision many use-cases where you wouldn't actually
have the flags as a constant, anyway; they're too fundamental to the
behavior of the function.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-05-03 02:32:15 | Re: Faster array_length() |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-05-03 01:57:08 | New and interesting replication issues with 9.2.8 sync rep |