From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | a(dot)joubert(at)albourne(dot)com, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Bit strings |
Date: | 2000-10-03 04:42:07 |
Message-ID: | 16747.970548127@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>>> Can we get the BIT type working now that 7.1 is branched?
I did some work on the BIT types a couple months ago. According to
my notes, the following issues are still outstanding before they
can be said to work at all:
Bit and hexstring literals are not handled in a reasonable fashion;
the scanner converts them to integer constants which is bogus.
Probably they need to be converted to some generic 'UNKNOWNBITSTRING'
pseudo-type that can later be coerced to a specific bitstring type.
I didn't touch this because it seems to open up the Pandora's box
of unknown-constant handling, for which we do not have a good
general solution.
SQL92 sez we need a position() function for bitstrings.
Need a regression test for bit types.
scalarltsel() and friends need to cope with bit/varbit types in
order to make good use of indexes on bitstrings.
pg_dump does not handle BIT/VARBIT lengths properly (pjw may have
fixed this by now).
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jerome Alet | 2000-10-03 07:22:39 | Re: grant/revoke bug with delete/update |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-03 04:20:42 | Re: What's happening with pgsql-committers? |