Robert Brewer wrote: > Raymond Hettinger wrote: >> I thought the whole point of 3.0 was a recognition that all that >> doubling-up was a bad thing and to be rid of it. Why make the >> situation worse? ISTM that we need two versions of oct() like >> we need a hole in the head. Heck, there's potentially a case to be >> made that we don't need oct() at all. IIRC, unix permissions like >> 0666 were the only use case that surfaced. > > Postgres bytea coercion is a frequent use case for oct() in my world. > But I agree we don't need two versions. Unless you're trying to write code to work with both 2.6 and 3.0.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4