Re: proposal - urlencode, urldecode support

2012/4/25 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 2012/4/25 Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>:
>>> Sounds like a great idea for a PGXN module.
>
>> it is one variant - but with support some web technologies - XML,
>> JSON, I prefer this in core. Urlcode is one the most used code on
>> world now -  implementation is simple - and it can be well integrated
>> with decode, encode functions.
>
> Embedding that in encode/decode sounds to me like a pretty horrid idea,
> actually, unless I misunderstand what you are talking about.  URL
> encoding is a text-to-text transformation, no?  If so, it doesn't fit
> into encode/decode, which presume a binary (bytea) decoded form.  People
> would be needing to do entirely bogus text/bytea coercions to use
> such an implementation.

A motivation for this proposal is JSON. I found lot of situation where
content of some internet data was was encoded in this code.

>
> Ergo, this needs to be a separate function, and so the argument for
> putting it in core seems a bit weak to me.  The net field demand for
> the feature, so far, has been zero.
>

ook - it can be implemented as independently or as part of
convert_from, convert_to function.

Regards

Pavel

>                        regards, tom lane