On 05/15/24 15:07, Robert Haas wrote:
> is. I believe that if I were reading the documentation, count would be
> clearer to me than N, N would probably still be clear enough, and
> replace_at wouldn't be clear at all. I'd expect replace_at to be a
> character position or something, not an occurrence count.
You've said the magic word. In the analogous (but XQuery-based)
ISO standard regex functions, the argument that does that is identified
with the keyword OCCURRENCE.
What would be wrong with that, for consistency's sake?
Regards,
-Chap
