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

  1. Doc: rearrange the documentation of binary-string functions.