| From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: bit strings - anyone working on them? |
| Date: | 2003-04-23 03:34:45 |
| Message-ID: | 20030422203314.O76529-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > > ISTM we should return B'11' for this. ie. build the smallest varbit that
> > > contains the result, and return it.
> >
> > ISTM that the answer would be closer to B'10' according to the spec. The
> > spec asks for right extension by 0 when casting to a larger size fixed bit
> > string.
>
> Huh??? That makes no sense at all!!!
Yeah, as Philip says, I think the spec writers were assuming that left
most bit is LSB. It makes more sense with the way the casting and
substring are defined (but would mean that our int->bit casts are wierd
then)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-04-23 04:14:19 | Re: bit strings - anyone working on them? |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2003-04-23 01:30:24 | Re: CLOSE command tag |