Re: format() with embedded to_char() formatter

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: format() with embedded to_char() formatter
Date: 2010-11-22 17:17:26
Message-ID: 29170.1290446246@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> And lastly, AFAICS there
>> is no way to do what you suggest without some really ugly kluges
>> in the parser --- I think the function parsing code would have to
>> have special cases to make format() work like this.

> Huh?

How exactly are you going to get from

format('string here', timestamp_expr)

to

format('string here', to_char(timestamp_expr))

especially seeing that "to_char" is not one function but an overloaded
family of functions (doubtless soon to become even more overloaded,
if this proposal is adopted)?

Or is the intention to replicate the parser's
overloaded-function-resolution behavior at runtime? That seems awkward,
duplicative, slow, and probably prone to security issues (think
search_path).

Or perhaps Itagaki-san intended to hard-wire a fixed set of to_char
functions that format() knows about. That seems to lose whatever minor
charms the proposal possessed, because it wouldn't be extensible without
changing format()'s C code.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-11-22 17:21:36 Re: dblink versus long connection strings
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2010-11-22 17:12:41 Re: dblink versus long connection strings