Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

bit/varbit stuff

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Adriaan Joubert <a(dot)joubert(at)albourne(dot)com>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: bit/varbit stuff
Date: 2000-08-03 16:20:50
Message-ID: 8315.965319650@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
I'm thinking of diving into the bit/varbit stuff, mainly because it's
practically the last area left on the list of functions not converted
to new fmgr style.

In a quick look at the code, I wonder why we are bothering with separate
bit and varbit functions/operators when they all do the same things.
Why not have one set of functions and mark the two types
binary-equivalent?

I notice also that we're missing a length-coercion function for bit.
I will add that, also the table entries needed for indexing support.

Adriaan, could I get your last set of changes (the patch submitted 7/21)
in the form of diffs from what you'd submitted before?  It's not easy to
tell exactly what you changed --- diffing against what's in CVS isn't
very helpful because of the intervening pgindent reformat.  Also, do you
object to sticking the standard Postgres copyright notices on the files?

			regards, tom lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: The Hermit HackerDate: 2000-08-03 16:23:47
Subject: Re: comparing rows
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-08-03 15:45:39
Subject: Re: Re: [HACKERS] random() function produces wrong range

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group