On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 10:40 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 10:17 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> AFAICS, that one is correct, so I left it alone. (I didn't try to
> >> merge the table's two entries into one like that, though.)
>
> > regexp_replace(string, pattern, replacement [, start [, N ]] [, flags ]).
>
> > can represent
>
> > regexp_replace(string, pattern, replacement , start, flags ) ?
>
> Hmm, yeah, you're right. I didn't want to write two separate
> synopses there, but maybe there's no choice.
>
we can get rid of:
(Notice that <replaceable>N</replaceable> cannot be specified
unless <replaceable>start</replaceable> is,
but <replaceable>flags</replaceable> can be given in any case.)
Now the output is
It has the syntax regexp_replace(string, pattern, replacement [, flags
]) and regexp_replace(string, pattern, replacement, start [, N [,
flags ]]).
I also decorated "[]" with "<optional>".