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