Re: patch (for 9.1) string functions
| От | Merlin Moncure |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: patch (for 9.1) string functions |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | AANLkTi=h2wGYM1y6D8_7HX=tugtKaFasg6=gDnWBKpaZ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: patch (for 9.1) string functions (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: patch (for 9.1) string functions
Re: patch (for 9.1) string functions |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Regardless of where this function ends up, the concat_ws documentation
> should contain some mention of the fact that "ws" is intended to mean
> "with separator",
big +1 on that -- I've been loosely following the thread and I had
assumed 'ws' meant 'wide string' all this time :-).
> Come to think of it, have we checked that the behavior of LEFT, RIGHT,
> REVERSE, etc. is the same on other DBs, especially as far as nulls,
> empty strings, too-large or negative subscripts, etc is concerned?
Probably 'standard' behavior wrt null would be to be strict; return
null if any argument is null. The proposed behavior seems ok though.
> CONCAT('foo', NULL) => 'foo' really the behavior that everyone else
> implements here? And why does CONCAT() take a variadic "ANY"
> argument? Shouldn't that be variadic TEXT?
What does that accomplish, besides forcing you to sprinkle every
concat call with text casts (maybe that's not a bad thing?)?
merlin
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: