Re: Last minute mini-proposal (I know, Iknow)forPQexecf()

From: <korryd(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Last minute mini-proposal (I know, Iknow)forPQexecf()
Date: 2007-04-01 12:23:12
Message-ID: 1175430192.6784.85.camel@sakai.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> I don't necessarily object to PQexecf() as a shortcut for some
> multi-step operation, but I don't think you've got the format string
> semantics down yet.

I'm thinking that we could start with the "standard" conversion
specifiers - those are well understood and would be expected by just
about any C developer.

In particular, the %d, %u, %e, and %f format specifiers are immediately
useful.

If we start with the "standard" set, you can start to use PQexecf()
immediately and we could promise to maintain *at least* that set.

We can add more specifiers (for proper quoting and such) later - we
can't break existing client applications if we just add to the set of
supported specifiers; the function gets more useful as time goes by.

-- Korry

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Guillaume Smet 2007-04-01 15:13:39 Re: Column storage positions
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2007-04-01 10:30:51 Re: Bug in UTF8-Validation Code?