> I don't necessarily object to PQexecf() as a shortcut for some
> multi-step operation, but I don't think you've got the format string
> semantics down yet.


I'm thinking that we could start with the "standard" conversion
specifiers - those are well understood and would be expected by just
about any C developer.

In particular, the %d, %u, %e, and %f format specifiers are immediately
useful.

If we start with the "standard" set, you can start to use PQexecf()
immediately and we could promise to maintain *at least* that set.

We can add more specifiers (for proper quoting and such) later - we
can't break existing client applications if we just add to the set of
supported specifiers; the function gets more useful as time goes by.


            -- Korry

In response to

• Re: Last minute mini-proposal (I know, I know)forPQexecf() at 2007-04-01 06:52:49 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: Last minute mini-proposal (I know, Iknow)forPQexecf() at 2007-04-01 19:08:28 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Guillaume Smet	Date: 2007-04-01 15:13:39
	Subject: Re: Column storage positions
Previous:	From: Martijn van Oosterhout	Date: 2007-04-01 10:30:51
	Subject: Re: Bug in UTF8-Validation Code?