| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: RfD: more powerful "any" types |
| Date: | 2009-09-11 15:19:08 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070909110819h5f4af366n6be86685292c5a04@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
>> I think the main benefit of a sprintf type function for PostgreSQL is
>> in the formatting (setting length, scale, alignment), not in making
>> concatenation more pretty.
>
> Exactly, which is why I'm so distressed that this proposal not only
> hasn't got that, but is designed so that it's impossible to add it
> later.
I like the idea of making concatenation more pretty, quite frankly.
No one has really responded to Pavel's contention that this is what
to_char() is for. Twice the code paths = twice the bugs, twice the
places that have to be updated when some new feature is added, etc.
On the other hand I don't really strongly object if someone else wants
to do the work, either. I do think allowing for upward compatibility
with future extensions is probably smart, regardless of how simple or
complex the first version is.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-11 15:26:16 | Re: COPY enhancements |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-11 15:16:44 | Re: Ragged CSV import |