On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, Eugene E. wrote:
> Stephan Szabo wrote:
> >>>What would you expect it to do given a single result format argument?
> >>>
> >>>If you want to propose a new function (set of functions) that have
> >>>different behavior, make a coherent proposal.
> >>
> >> > Statements like it should
> >> > do X because I want it to aren't coherent proposals.
> >>
> >>AFAIK, they convert each value before put it to a result set.
> >>I propose to do the following convertion to the textual-form for bytea
> >>values:
> >>X->X where X is byte [0..255]
> >
> >
> > Okay, now pass that to strcmp or a %s format. AFAIK, the "textual-form" of
> > values is meant to be a c-string. "ab\0cd\0" is not a c-string containing
> > ab\0cd, it's a c-string containing ab.
>
> WHY strcmp ?! do you really think the user is a fool ?
> if the user declared something "binary", he obviously knows what he has
> done.
>
> WHY c-string ? the user only wants to get PGresult structure.
> Since this structure provides a length of each value, you have no need
> in c-string. Why do think the user needs it ?
>
> "textual-form" is just a name of actually existent convertion rule.
> i am not trying to find out a philosophy here.
Then, honestly, nothing anyone can say will help, because you're not
willing to actually hold a conversation on the topic.
