From: | "Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Function structure in formatting.c |
Date: | 2007-08-08 16:07:11 |
Message-ID: | 37ed240d0708080907p587c7713l4938afeeeddb32d7@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On 8/9/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > To my mind, it would make a lot more sense (and make hacking the file
> > a lot easier) if the processing functions were split into to_char and
> > from_char variants. I'm not sure what, if any, advantage is gleaned
> > by having these functions combined.
>
> Yeah, I never liked that approach either. I suppose the idea was to
> keep the to- and from- code for each format code close together, but
> it blurs what's going on to a much greater extent than that's worth.
Okay, I'll see what I can do.
Incidentally, anybody know what DCH is supposed to stand for?
Throughout the code DCH is used to refer to date/time formatting and
NUM to numeric formatting. Just curious.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Decibel! | 2007-08-08 16:41:04 | Re: [mmoncure@gmail.com: Re: [GENERAL] array_to_set functions] |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2007-08-08 15:56:08 | Re: RIP: Buildfarm member Baiji ?? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-08-08 16:41:35 | Re: further WIP for COPYable logs |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-08-08 14:38:28 | Re: Function structure in formatting.c |