2010/10/18 Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takah...@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:29 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> No doubt. The problem is that we're going to end up with those bells
>> and whistles in two places: in to_char or other type-specific
>> formatting functions, and again in format.
>
> If we decide to use C-like sprintf(), I think the only thing we can do
> is to implement C-syntax as much as possible. Users will expect the
> function behaves as sprintf, because it has the similar syntax.
> It's not an item for now, but someone would request it at a future date.
>
yes, it is reason why I wrote two functions - sprintf and format.
>
> BTW, the interoperability is why I proposed {} syntax. For example,
> {1:YYYY-MM-DD} for date is expanded to to_char($1, 'YYYY-MM-DD').
> (Maybe it's not so easy; It requires function lookups depending on types.)
why this shorcut is necessary?
Regards
Pavel Stehule
>
> --
> Itagaki Takahiro
>
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
