Re: BUG #5469: regexp_matches() has poor behaviour and more poor documentation - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: BUG #5469: regexp_matches() has poor behaviour and more poor documentation
Date
Msg-id 201005292100.o4TL0tf27606@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: BUG #5469: regexp_matches() has poor behaviour and more poor documentation  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: BUG #5469: regexp_matches() has poor behaviour and more poor documentation  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-bugs
I have updated the patch, attached, to clarify that this returns text
arrays, and that you can force it to always return one row using
COALESCE() and a '|' pattern (the later suggested by Daniele Varrazzo).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Daniele Varrazzo wrote:
> > "If there is no match to the pattern, the function returns no rows" is
> > easily overlooked as "it returns null", or some other behaviour that
> > don't change the returned set. The point is, because the function is
> > listed in the string function, you would expect the function to
> > manipulate text, not the dataset. The function as it is is not safe to
> > be used in a construct
> >
> >     SELECT foo, bar, regexp_matches(bar, pattern) FROM table;
> >
> > unless you really wanted:
> >
> >     SELECT foo, bar, regexp_matches(bar, pattern) FROM table WHERE bar
> > ~ pattern;
> >
> > otherwise you have to take measures to be able to deal with records in
> > which the pattern is not matched, for example:
> >
> >     SELECT foo, bar, regexp_matches(bar, pattern || '|') FROM table;
> >
> > the latter still doesn't work when bar is NULL: in this case the
> > record is dropped anyway, so I don't think it can be proposed as
> > general solution.
> >
> > The characteristics of returning a set of text[] is useful when the
> > user wants all the matches, not only the first one: the behaviour is
> > selected specifying the flag 'g' as third argument.
> >
> > >From this point of view, I hope it can be stated that in its current
> > form the regexp_matches() has not the most optimal interface. Please
> > accept my apology for the tone being too rude in my previous message.
>
> I found the description in the documentation quite confusing also.  I
> have created the attached documention patch which is clearer about the
> behavior of regexp_matches().

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com
Index: doc/src/sgml/func.sgml
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml,v
retrieving revision 1.513
diff -c -c -r1.513 func.sgml
*** doc/src/sgml/func.sgml    7 Apr 2010 06:12:52 -0000    1.513
--- doc/src/sgml/func.sgml    29 May 2010 20:55:23 -0000
***************
*** 3445,3463 ****
     </para>

      <para>
!      The <function>regexp_matches</> function returns all of the captured
!      substrings resulting from matching a POSIX regular expression pattern.
!      It has the syntax
       <function>regexp_matches</function>(<replaceable>string</>, <replaceable>pattern</>
       <optional>, <replaceable>flags</> </optional>).
!      If there is no match to the <replaceable>pattern</>, the function returns
!      no rows.  If there is a match, the function returns a text array whose
       <replaceable>n</>'th element is the substring matching the
       <replaceable>n</>'th parenthesized subexpression of the pattern
       (not counting <quote>non-capturing</> parentheses; see below for
!      details).  If the pattern does not contain any parenthesized
!      subexpressions, then the result is a single-element text array containing
!      the substring matching the whole pattern.
       The <replaceable>flags</> parameter is an optional text
       string containing zero or more single-letter flags that change the
       function's behavior.  Flag <literal>g</> causes the function to find
--- 3445,3466 ----
     </para>

      <para>
!      The <function>regexp_matches</> function returns a text array of
!      all of the captured substrings resulting from matching a POSIX
!      regular expression pattern.  It has the syntax
       <function>regexp_matches</function>(<replaceable>string</>, <replaceable>pattern</>
       <optional>, <replaceable>flags</> </optional>).
!      The function can return no rows, one row, or multiple rows (see
!      the <literal>g</> flag below).  If the <replaceable>pattern</>
!      does not match, the function returns no rows.  If the pattern
!      contains no parenthesized subexpressions, then each row
!      returned is a single-element text array containing the substring
!      matching the whole pattern.  If the pattern contains parenthesized
!      subexpressions, the function returns a text array whose
       <replaceable>n</>'th element is the substring matching the
       <replaceable>n</>'th parenthesized subexpression of the pattern
       (not counting <quote>non-capturing</> parentheses; see below for
!      details).
       The <replaceable>flags</> parameter is an optional text
       string containing zero or more single-letter flags that change the
       function's behavior.  Flag <literal>g</> causes the function to find
***************
*** 3490,3495 ****
--- 3493,3509 ----
  </programlisting>
     </para>

+    <para>
+     It is possible to force <function>regexp_matches()</> to always
+     return one row by using <function>COALESCE()</> and an empty
+     <literal>|</> pattern;  this is particularly useful in a
+     <literal>SELECT</> target list  when you want all rows returned,
+     even non-matching ones:
+ <programlisting>
+ SELECT col1, regexp_matches(COALESCE(col2, ''), '(bar)(beque)|') FROM tab;
+ </programlisting>
+    </para>
+
      <para>
       The <function>regexp_split_to_table</> function splits a string using a POSIX
       regular expression pattern as a delimiter.  It has the syntax

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: "Pascal Van Puymbroeck"
Date:
Subject: BUG #5483: PQescapeStringConn behaviour ??
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #5483: PQescapeStringConn behaviour ??