bit strings - anyone working on them?

From: Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>
To: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: bit strings - anyone working on them?
Date: 2003-04-22 11:48:43
Message-ID: 5.1.0.14.0.20030422214110.03e9ffc8@mail.rhyme.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Having just used bit strings for the first time, I am now aware of some
features I consider a little odd, and was wondering if (a) they are
actively being worked on, (b) if they are not considered the way to go, and
(c) if there would be any interest in the additions/changes indicated below.

1. Length enforcement:
----------------------

select B'10' | B'1';

is currently illegal.

ISTM we should return B'11' for this. ie. build the smallest varbit that
contains the result, and return it.

2. test_bit, set_bit, or get_bit
--------------------------------

These are not implemented for the varbit data type

3. extract_bits
---------------

extract_bits(varbit bits, int from, int to) returns varbit

would seem useful.

4. Conversion routines
----------------------

Doesn't seem too unreasonable to support varbit<->numeric conversions.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner | __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \
(A.B.N. 75 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81 | _________ \
Fax: (+61) 03 5330 3172 | ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \|
| --________--
PGP key available upon request, | /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matthew T. O'Connor 2003-04-22 12:23:24 Re: For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing
Previous Message Kevin Brown 2003-04-22 11:44:30 Re: [PERFORM] Foreign key performance