Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > But actually here's an even simpler workaround, which is IMHO less
> > ugly than the original one:
>
> > SELECT foo, bar, (SELECT regexp_matches(bar, pattern)) FROM table;
>
> Doesn't that blow up if the subselect returns more than one row?
>
> I think you could make it work by wrapping regexp_matches in a
> simple (non-SETOF) SQL function, but just writing out the sub-SELECT
> doesn't do it. This goes back to the recent discussion of why SQL
> functions can't always be inlined --- the semantics are a bit
> different in some cases.
If you don't use 'g' as a third argument, it can't return more than one
row.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ None of us is going to be here forever. +
