On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 10:40:34 -0500,
Celia McInnis <celia(at)drmath(dot)ca> wrote:
> Thanks very much Bruce and Tom for your responses and explanations. The
> current mode of operation is mathematically disturbing so I'm hoping that you
> can figure out some sort of a fix! Perhaps this example is a little more
> convincing than my last one at showing the bug/feature:
> 949 base 10 = 1110110101 base two.
> select 949::bit(10) gives 1110110101 (as expected).
Why is that expected? Based on your reasoning for the last case I would
expect '0000000000', since the first 10 bits of that integer are 0.
> select 949::bit(10)::bit(3) gives 111 (the 3 most significant bits)
> select 949::bit(3) gives 101 (the 3 least significant bits).
> As a mathematician, I'd certainly at least want the last two selects to give
> the same results!
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-05-13 16:34:02|
|Subject: Re: Fwd: Bug#308513: postgresql-client: [manual] createuser(1) Add example '...WITH PASSWORD' |
|Previous:||From: David Walker||Date: 2005-05-13 16:09:00|
|Subject: Re: initdb fails on ultra2. followup|