Re: [GENERAL] Update of bitmask type

Can I get comments on this? Is a bit type something we want installed
by default, or in contrib? Seems to me it should be in the main tree.

> Hi,
>
> here is a new version of the bitmask type. It supports hash-indices as
> well now, and fixes a bug in the definition of the <> operator.
>
> I would appreciate it if somebody more knowledgable than myself would
> look over the index definitions. They seem to work and are used by
> postgres, so I guess they can't be all wrong. The hashing function is
> the same as that for char's and comes straight out of the postgres
> source code.
>
> BTW, chapter 36 of the documentation could do with some additions, but I
> don't feel knowledgable enough to attempt it. E.g. it shows how to put
> an entry for the hashing into pg_amop, but never explains how to define
> the entry in pg_amproc and doesn't tell you that you need to define a
> separate hashing function. It took me a while of looking through the
> other definitions and digging through the source code to come up with a
> best guess.
>
> Perhaps this could go into the contrib area if it passes muster, as it
> is an example of a user-defined type with indices.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adriaan

[application/x-gzip is not supported, skipping...]

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026