From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Subject: | Hex literals |
Date: | 2002-07-30 15:33:14 |
Message-ID: | 3D46B1BA.4CCD39E9@fourpalms.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I've got patches to adjust the interpretation of hex literals from an
integer type (which is how I implemented it years ago to support the
*syntax*) to a bit string type. I've mentioned this in a previous
thread, and am following up now.
One point raised previously is that the spec may not be clear about the
correct type assignment for a hex constant. I believe that the spec is
clear on this (well, not really, but as clear as SQL99 manages to get ;)
and that the correct assignment is to bit string (as opposed to a large
object or some other alternative).
I base this on at least one part of the standard, which is a clause in
the restrictions on the BIT feature (which we already support):
31) Specifications for Feature F511, "BIT data type":
a) Subclause 5.3, "<literal>":
i) Without Feature F511, "BIT data type", a <general literal>
shall not be a <bit string literal> or a <hex string
literal>.
This seems to be a hard linkage of hex strings with the BIT type.
Comments or concerns?
- Thomas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2002-07-30 15:36:45 | Re: Weird manual page |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-07-30 15:30:49 | Re: Why is MySQL more chosen over PostgreSQL? |