Re: Patch to document base64 encoding
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Karl O. Pinc" <kop@karlpinc.com>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>,
PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Date: 2019-08-02T14:44:43Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Karl O. Pinc" <kop@karlpinc.com> writes: > But I'm not happy with putting any function that works with > bytea into the binary string section. This would mean moving, > say, length() out of the regular string section. There's a > lot of functions that work on both string and bytea inputs > and most (not all, see below) are functions that people > typically associate with string data. Well, there are two different length() functions --- length(text) and length(bytea) are entirely different things, they don't even measure in the same units. I think documenting them separately is the right thing to do. I don't really have a problem with repeating the entries for other functions that exist in both text and bytea variants, either. There aren't that many. > What I think I'd like to do is add a column to the table > in the string section that says whether or not the function > works with both string and bytea. Meh. Seems like what that would mostly do is ensure that neither page is understandable on its own. regards, tom lane
Commits
-
Doc: rearrange the documentation of binary-string functions.
- 34a0a81bfb38 13.0 landed