Re: [PATCH] proposal for regexp_count, regexp_instr, regexp_substr and regexp_replace - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net> writes:
> If this turns out to be a case of "attached the wrong patch, here's
> the one that does implement foo_regex functions!" then I reserve an
> objection to that. :)

+1 to that.  Just to add a note, I do have some ideas about extending
our regex parser so that it could duplicate the XQuery syntax --- none
of the points we mention in 9.7.3.8 seem insurmountable.  I'm not
planning to work on that in the near future, mind you, but I definitely
think that we don't want to paint ourselves into a corner where we've
already implemented the XQuery regex functions with the wrong behavior.

            regards, tom lane