From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
cc: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>,
        "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>,
        Marcos Pegoraro <marcos@f10.com.br>,
        PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: add function argument name to substring and substr
In-reply-to: <d4a5d8fd-cb3a-4615-a44e-b45a5557d350@dunslane.net>
References: 
 <CACJufxHTBkymh06D4mGKNe1YfRNFN+gFBybmygWk=PtMqu00LQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKFQuwYD477A9Oy2PxRr_KY8t=k=jbOUK83ie0dS7fcpBsXS3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACJufxE9kt7fAz_g_6PO0PmxK=duWDx+dNUyEWHkGxmRw0EqOg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKFQuwZ=ZEkQaFZBRpukNn-qvk4U52ZAsrLLRPAC4hgcZsJmkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACJufxFpzqdfYvsj2iWhtemRyPSB5O7_gb9vRd7cE1ZcVvmZnw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKFQuwa-j+oA23EVA7qk+AUdpi24d1LC_O9MH5oSnzOv2McEhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACJufxH0jqshH6SC97eQ7T=QcSYpbtKMR2=wmds=K2UT9t0tFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKFQuwbPdo1MORJqnQj=eA6bGrvGu_U+8J+oTWw7QDvuX2oAQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACJufxGF6vU7KUMqHL0RehdvwVBENz2Q++ZyGJaCzk2_VVPqWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKFQuwZU=eY0F6jE4ekuPs5FMqNr2e-mJ=MTuaZTeDG+Xti1=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB-JLwathhELcwARpTJ5cAh-Z6tS6V8PCXti9woGZMJiqzCPfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKFQuwYSRa_Q-qpXMosT4HYx62aGjkiNA2A-d6dZhzTamHs6dw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACJufxHbWiZLwzKs6k4+w=UjA_wDEEhWgH2fpUexxgvHOP_OWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACJufxHDCHsKp_8U8cQvnQpa8mPy1bJ5jjdcmjHGT9weoAT4bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <d4a5d8fd-c!
 b3a-4615-a44e-b45a5557d350@dunslane.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
	message dated "Mon, 13 Oct 2025 10:58:30 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <243364.1760371856.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2025 12:10:56 -0400
Message-ID: <243365.1760371856@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/243365.1760371856%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> I'm late to the party on this, but I wonder if it wouldn't be better to 
> use a type-neutral parameter name here, like "source", which could cover 
> all these cases, instead of "string", "bytes", etc.

+1 for that idea.  As Jian notes, we'd need to make the docs match,
but I think that this would be an improvement across the board.
Parameter names like "string" don't convey much information.

			regards, tom lane