Could regexp_matches be immutable?
in [PgSql]
|
From: Tom Lane on 21 Oct 2009 10:27 Rod Taylor <rod.taylor(a)gmail.com> writes: > It is interesting that "citext" seems to be functional with exactly > the same statements. Huh, it looks to me like that's an error in the declaration of the citext versions of regexp_matches --- they should be declared to return setof text[], the same as the underlying text functions. David, do you agree? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: "David E. Wheeler" on 21 Oct 2009 12:24 On Oct 21, 2009, at 7:27 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Huh, it looks to me like that's an error in the declaration of the > citext versions of regexp_matches --- they should be declared to > return > setof text[], the same as the underlying text functions. David, do > you > agree? Ooh, yeah, dunno how I missed that. Best, David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Tom Lane on 21 Oct 2009 12:37 "David E. Wheeler" <david(a)kineticode.com> writes: > On Oct 21, 2009, at 7:27 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Huh, it looks to me like that's an error in the declaration of the >> citext versions of regexp_matches --- they should be declared to >> return >> setof text[], the same as the underlying text functions. David, do >> you agree? > Ooh, yeah, dunno how I missed that. I think we're probably stuck in 8.4, but we should fix it going forward. Would you make a quick check if any of the other citext functions have the same bug? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: "David E. Wheeler" on 21 Oct 2009 12:40 On Oct 21, 2009, at 9:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Ooh, yeah, dunno how I missed that. > > I think we're probably stuck in 8.4, but we should fix it going > forward. Would you make a quick check if any of the other citext > functions have the same bug? I've fixed it in my [version for 8.3](https://svn.kineticode.com/citext/trunk ). Is there a straight-foward way to check such a thing programmatically, with a query perhaps? Or should I just put aside an hour to do an audit? Best, David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: "David E. Wheeler" on 21 Oct 2009 12:41
On Oct 21, 2009, at 9:40 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Oct 21, 2009, at 9:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> Ooh, yeah, dunno how I missed that. >> >> I think we're probably stuck in 8.4, but we should fix it going >> forward. Would you make a quick check if any of the other citext >> functions have the same bug? > > I've fixed it in my [version for 8.3](https://svn.kineticode.com/citext/trunk > ). Is there a straight-foward way to check such a thing > programmatically, with a query perhaps? Or should I just put aside > an hour to do an audit? FWIW, I think that this is a bug, and that the variation from the text version will be unexpected. I recommend fixing it for 8.4.2. Best, David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |