Joe Conway wrote:
>
> Hannu Krosing wrote:
> > What about functions
> >
> > 1. split(text,text,int) returns text
> >
> > 2. split(text,text) returns text[]
> >
> > and why not
> >
> > 3. split(text,text,text) returns text
> >
> > which returns text from $1 delimited by $2 and $3
>
> Given the time remaining before beta, I'll be happy just to get #1 done.
>
> I can see the utility of #2 (or perhaps even a table function which
> breaks the string into individual rows). I'm not sure I understand #3.
>
> I am concerned about the name though -- only in that there are usually
> objections raised to function names that are too likely to conflict with
> user created function names. But "split" is good from the standpoint
> that it is used in other languages, so people should find it familiar.
>
> Anyone have comments on the name?
Actually, I've been wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea with schemas
coming to think now about how to divide up namespaces for all sorts of
things, including PostgreSQL's built in functions, the contrib code,
etc. I think a naming scheme with which both PostgreSQL and the
community would comply, a la Java's reverse DNS scheme for namespaces
would be neat. So when a database is installed, the following schemas
are automatically created:
org.postgresql.system <- System tables and core functions
org.postgresql.text <- Text related functions
org.postgresql.math <- Math related functions
org.postgresql.fts <- Full-Text schema
or perhaps:
org.postgresql.contrib.fts <- Full-Text schema
etc.
I don't even know if "." is allowed in the schema names, but you get the
idea. Then, a users search_path (or whatever it's called, I haven't used
the development version in a while), would be the equivalent of Java's
"import" statement, or C++'s "using" statement. So "split" would be a
function in the org.postgresql.text schema.
How about them apples?
If this is an insane idea, its 3:32 A.M. my time ;-)
Mike Mascari
mascarm@mascari.com
>
> Joe
