| From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>, Alex Sokoloff <alex_sokoloff(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: ascii to character conversion in postgres |
| Date: | 2000-09-18 16:36:32 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.21.0009181336010.17831-100000@thelab.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> >> I vote for just renaming it to chr(). Any objections?
>
> > first thing off the top of my head ... was there a reason why it was added
> > to contrib/odbc? ignoring the "oracle documentation", is it something
> > that is/was needed for ODBC?
>
> Now that I look, it seems ODBC specifies the function as "char()",
> which means contrib/odbc is wrong on that score too :-(
>
> New proposal: forget ichar(), give the function two entries chr() and
> char().
sounds good to me ... chr() == char(), I take it? is there a reason for
having both vs just changing char() to chr() in the odbc stuff?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-09-18 16:38:33 | Re: Feature request: client would like to donate X thousand dollars for development of features Y and Z. |
| Previous Message | Dan Browning | 2000-09-18 16:31:32 | Feature request: client would like to donate X thousand dollars for development of features Y and Z. |