Re: Bit strings

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: a(dot)joubert(at)albourne(dot)com, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bit strings
Date: 2000-10-03 04:42:07
Message-ID: 16747.970548127@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>>>> Can we get the BIT type working now that 7.1 is branched?

I did some work on the BIT types a couple months ago. According to
my notes, the following issues are still outstanding before they
can be said to work at all:

Bit and hexstring literals are not handled in a reasonable fashion;
the scanner converts them to integer constants which is bogus.
Probably they need to be converted to some generic 'UNKNOWNBITSTRING'
pseudo-type that can later be coerced to a specific bitstring type.
I didn't touch this because it seems to open up the Pandora's box
of unknown-constant handling, for which we do not have a good
general solution.

SQL92 sez we need a position() function for bitstrings.

Need a regression test for bit types.

scalarltsel() and friends need to cope with bit/varbit types in
order to make good use of indexes on bitstrings.

pg_dump does not handle BIT/VARBIT lengths properly (pjw may have
fixed this by now).

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jerome Alet 2000-10-03 07:22:39 Re: grant/revoke bug with delete/update
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-10-03 04:20:42 Re: What's happening with pgsql-committers?