Hex literals

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

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?