Re: 'converts internal representation to "..."' comment is confusing

On 24/06/2023 23:52, Steve Chavez wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2023 at 07:49, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com
> <mailto:robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 9:37 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
> <mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>> wrote:
> > Steve Chavez <steve(at)supabase(dot)io <mailto:steve(at)supabase(dot)io>> writes:
> > > I found "..." confusing in some comments, so this patch changes
> it to
> > > "cstring". Which seems to be the intention after all.
> >
> > Those comments are Berkeley-era, making them probably a decade older
> > than the "cstring" pseudotype (invented in b663f3443).  Perhaps what
> > you suggest is an improvement, but I'm not sure that appealing to
> > original intent can make the case.
>
> FWIW, it does seem like an improvement to me.
>
> Tom, could we apply this patch since Robert agrees it's an improvement?

Looking around at other input/output functions, we're not very
consistent, there are many variants of "converts string to [datatype]",
"converts C string to [datatype]", and "input routine for [datatype]".
They are all fine, even though they're inconsistent. Doesn't seem worth
the code churn to change them.

Anyway, I agree this patch is an improvement, so applied. Thanks!

--
Heikki Linnakangas
Neon (https://neon.tech)