Re: Bit strings

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, a(dot)joubert(at)albourne(dot)com, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bit strings
Date: 2001-01-19 22:29:53
Message-ID: 200101192229.RAA15189@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


OK, I will delete my copy of the email. If there is something to be
added to the TODO list, let me know.

[ People are welcome to modify it themselves too.]

> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > Any idea where we are on this?
>
> > > Bit and hexstring literals are not handled in a reasonable fashion;
>
> Bit string literals are handled correctly, although it occurred to me that
> perhaps
>
> #define IsA_Value(t) \
> (IsA(t, Integer) || IsA(t, Float) || IsA(t, String))
>
> should be augmented with BitString. Can someone advise?
>
> Hex literals are still not handled correctly.
>
> > > SQL92 sez we need a position() function for bitstrings.
>
> We have one now.
>
> > > Need a regression test for bit types.
>
> We have one now.
>
> > > scalarltsel() and friends need to cope with bit/varbit types in
> > > order to make good use of indexes on bitstrings.
>
> Not done.
>
> > > pg_dump does not handle BIT/VARBIT lengths properly (pjw may have
> > > fixed this by now).
>
> Works fine for me.
>
> --
> Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://yi.org/peter-e/
>
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-01-19 22:30:22 Re: Bit strings
Previous Message Ian Lance Taylor 2001-01-19 22:26:53 Re: AW: AW: AW: Re: tinterval - operator problems on AIX