Re: 'converts internal representation to "..."' comment is confusing

On 24/06/2023 23:52, Steve Chavez wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2023 at 07:49, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com 
> <mailto:robertmhaas@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 9:37 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
>     <mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote:
>      > Steve Chavez <steve@supabase.io <mailto:steve@supabase.io>> writes:
>      > > I found "..." confusing in some comments, so this patch changes
>     it to
>      > > "cstring". Which seems to be the intention after all.
>      >
>      > Those comments are Berkeley-era, making them probably a decade older
>      > than the "cstring" pseudotype (invented in b663f3443).  Perhaps what
>      > you suggest is an improvement, but I'm not sure that appealing to
>      > original intent can make the case.
> 
>     FWIW, it does seem like an improvement to me.
> 
> Tom, could we apply this patch since Robert agrees it's an improvement?

Looking around at other input/output functions, we're not very 
consistent, there are many variants of "converts string to [datatype]", 
"converts C string to [datatype]", and "input routine for [datatype]". 
They are all fine, even though they're inconsistent. Doesn't seem worth 
the code churn to change them.

Anyway, I agree this patch is an improvement, so applied. Thanks!

-- 
Heikki Linnakangas
Neon (https://neon.tech)