| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: RfD: more powerful "any" types |
| Date: | 2009-09-10 18:16:59 |
| Message-ID: | 5764.1252606619@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Sep 10, 2009, at 10:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I thought the idea was to
>>> provide the same power as sprintf, eg field width controls, numeric
>>> formatting options, etc.
> no - we have to_char function, why we need different formatting system?
Why do we need this at all, when we have the concatenation operator?
I think the point of it is that people are used to how sprintf works.
So it should work as nearly like sprintf as possible.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2009-09-10 18:18:16 | Re: RfD: more powerful "any" types |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-09-10 18:01:49 | Re: RfD: more powerful "any" types |