Re: small doc patch for regexp_replace

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Seems there is some inconsistency there. There are two types of
> > function listings, one with just the types, and another with param_name
> > and then type. We use "string" instead of "text" because varchar() and
> > char() can also be used.
>
> Where did that come from? The actual functions generally take "text",
> relying on implicit conversions to handle the other types. Since we do
> not have any type named "string", I think the locution <type>string</>
> is a contradiction in terms.
>
> IMHO these should all go back to <type>text</>.

Well, we actually have <parameter>string</> and I got a few wrong. I
have committed the changes. If we want to use <type>text</> instead
of <parameter>string</>, I can make that change too. There are quite a
few of them, like md5(). Yes?

--
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +