Re: Patch to document base64 encoding - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Patch to document base64 encoding
Date
Msg-id 1231.1564757083@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Patch to document base64 encoding  ("Karl O. Pinc" <kop@karlpinc.com>)
Responses Re: Patch to document base64 encoding  ("Karl O. Pinc" <kop@karlpinc.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Karl O. Pinc" <kop@karlpinc.com> writes:
> But I'm not happy with putting any function that works with
> bytea into the binary string section.  This would mean moving,
> say, length() out of the regular string section.  There's a
> lot of functions that work on both string and bytea inputs
> and most (not all, see below) are functions that people
> typically associate with string data.

Well, there are two different length() functions --- length(text)
and length(bytea) are entirely different things, they don't even
measure in the same units.  I think documenting them separately
is the right thing to do.  I don't really have a problem with
repeating the entries for other functions that exist in both
text and bytea variants, either.  There aren't that many.

> What I think I'd like to do is add a column to the table
> in the string section that says whether or not the function
> works with both string and bytea.

Meh.  Seems like what that would mostly do is ensure that
neither page is understandable on its own.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: pglz performance
Next
From: Chapman Flack
Date:
Subject: Re: Patch to document base64 encoding