Re: string function - "format" function proposal

2010/10/14 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Itagaki Takahiro
> <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 3:59 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> [ updated patch, in response to a review from Itagaki Takahiro ]
>>>
>>> This patch appears to be waiting for a second round of review.
>>> Itagaki-san, are you planning to do that?
>>
>> I can, but I was waiting for other people's comments about the design:
>>  - format() in core, that implements %s, %i, and %l.
>>  - substitute() for $n format and sprintf() that partially implements
>>    the same function in C in contrib/stringfunc.
>>
>> I don't like having three similar functions for the same purpose,
>> but Pavel said they are the best solutions. What will be our consensus?
>
> <rereads thread>
>
> I agree with you.  I think we should pick one implementation and just
> go with it.  There's nothing to say that Pavel can't distribute his
> own code however he likes, but I don't think there's any compelling
> reason for us to carry all that code in the main tree, even in
> /contrib.  Let's make format support %s, %i, and %l, as well as
> allowing things like %$3l (meaning, escape the third argument as a
> literal and interpolate here), and call it good.
>

my objection to put all to one functions was a format complexity and
little bit less readability - like %$3. But I am not strong it this.

Regards

Pavel Stehule

> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>