tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
> I think we should simply remove the description of *how* the escaping is
> performed, and state only that the function produces a suitably escaped
> literal string. Anything else is not future-proof, and could someday
> break the way this wording did.
Perhaps it would be best to remove escaping details here. But the
description of PQescapeBytea() might need to be rewritten, too. Without
describing exactly what PQescapeByteaConn() does, it is hard to understand
what PQescapeBytea() does not do, and why it therefore "might give the
wrong results".
I think the actual function behavior should be documented somewhere. Even
though it might change again.
