Re: small doc patch for regexp_replace

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</>.

regards, tom lane