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.
> I think I don't exactly agree with this description, but I'm unclear
> exactly what you're saying. Are you saying that textual-form is the
> useful representation, or are you saying that textual-form is the
> representation and it is useful?
the actual representasion of most types is pretty useful.
