Thanks for taking some of my previous review comments.
I have re-checked the string_to_table_20200820.patch.
Below are some remaining questions/comments:
====
COMMENT (help text)
+ Splits the <parameter>string</parameter> at occurrences + of <parameter>delimiter</parameter> and forms the remaining data + into a <type>text</type> tavke.
What did you mean by "remaining" in that description? It gets a bit strange thinking about remaining NULLs, or remaining empty strings.
Why not just say "... and forms the data into a <type>text</type> table."
---
+ Splits the <parameter>string</parameter> at occurrences + of <parameter>delimiter</parameter> and forms the remaining data + into a <type>text</type> tavke.
Typo: "tavke." -> "table."
This text is taken from doc for string_to_array
I fixed typo. I hope and expect so doc will be finalized by native speakers.
====
COMMENT (help text reference to regexp_split_to_table)
+ input <parameter>string</parameter> can be done by function + <function>regexp_split_to_table</function> (see <xref linkend="functions-posix-regexp"/>). + </para>
In the previous review I suggested adding a reference to the regexp_split_to_table function. A hyperlink would be a bonus, but maybe it is not possible.
The hyperlink added in the latest patch is to page for POSIX Regular Expressions, which doesn't seem appropriate.
ok I remove it
====
QUESTION (test cases)
Thanks for merging lots of my additional test cases!
Actually, the previous PDF I sent was 2 pages long but you only merged the tests of page 1. I wondered was it accidental to omit all those 2nd page tests?
I'll check it
I forgot it - now it is merged. Maybe it is over dimensioned for one function, but it is (at the end) a test of string_to_array function too.
====
QUESTION (function name?)
I noticed that ALL current string functions that use delimiters have the word "split" in their name.
e.g. * regexp_split_to_array * regexp_split_to_table * split_part
But "string_to_table" is not following this pattern.
Maybe a different choice of function name would be more consistent with what is already there? e.g. split_to_table, string_split_to_table, etc.
I don't agree. This function is twin (with almost identical behaviour) for "string_to_array" function, so I think so the name is correct.
Unfortunately - there is not consistency in naming already, But I think so string_to_table is a better name, because this function is almost identical with string_to_array.
