Hannu Krosing wrote:
Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2007-09-18 kell 08:08, kirjutas Andrew Dunstan:
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
What I think we'd need to have a complete solution is

convert(text, name) returns bytea
-- convert from DB encoding to arbitrary encoding

convert(bytea, name, name) returns bytea
-- convert between any two encodings

convert(bytea, name) returns text
-- convert from arbitrary encoding to DB encoding

The second and third would need to do a verify step before
converting, of course.
I'm wondering if we should give them disambiguating names, rather than call them all convert.
No.  We have a function overloading system, we should use it.

In general I agree with you.

What's bothering me here though is that in the two argument forms, if the first argument is text the second argument is the destination encoding, but if the first argument is a bytea the second argument is the source encoding. That strikes me as likely to be quite confusing, and we might alleviate that with something like:

  text convert_from(bytea, name)
  bytea convert_to(text, name)

how is this fundamentally different from encode/decode functions we have
now ?

They are in effect reversed. encode() applies the named encoding to a bytea. convert_from() above unapplies the named encoding (i.e. converts the bytea to text in the database encoding).



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to