From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: string function - "format" function proposal |
Date: | 2010-10-18 17:47:21 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTike9LqB3H1Jc_F5hEFOh7AWXP23nMP3SDNOyhdL@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 2010/10/18, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Itagaki Takahiro
>> <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:29 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> No doubt. The problem is that we're going to end up with those bells
>>>> and whistles in two places: in to_char or other type-specific
>>>> formatting functions, and again in format.
>>>
>>> If we decide to use C-like sprintf(), I think the only thing we can do
>>> is to implement C-syntax as much as possible. Users will expect the
>>> function behaves as sprintf, because it has the similar syntax.
>>> It's not an item for now, but someone would request it at a future date.
>>>
>>>
>>> BTW, the interoperability is why I proposed {} syntax. For example,
>>> {1:YYYY-MM-DD} for date is expanded to to_char($1, 'YYYY-MM-DD').
>>> (Maybe it's not so easy; It requires function lookups depending on types.)
>>
>> There's no particular reason why we couldn't make this work with
>> sprintf-type syntax; for example, you could allow %{XYZ} to mean
>> to_char(value, 'XYZ'). But it seems to me that we have agreement that
>> this should start with just %s, %I, %L and allow 3$ or similar in the
>> middle to specify which argument it is. We can then argue about how
>> many more bells and whistles to add later.
>
> so, yes. Can we finish this discus with this result? I'll prepare
> patch for next commit fest. Next question - what about sprintf
> function in core? Is living this idea still?
I'm indifferent about whether we put it in core or contrib.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-10-18 17:48:45 | Re: WIP: extensible enums |
Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2010-10-18 17:40:02 | Re: WIP: extensible enums |