From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: bit strings - anyone working on them? |
Date: | 2003-04-22 14:36:15 |
Message-ID: | 20030422072516.U67223-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Philip Warner wrote:
> 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.
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.
> 3. extract_bits
> ---------------
>
> extract_bits(varbit bits, int from, int to) returns varbit
>
> would seem useful.
I think substring is the way to do this.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | pgsql | 2003-04-22 14:45:11 | Re: For the ametures. (related to 'Are we losing momentum?') |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-04-22 14:32:29 | Re: bit strings - anyone working on them? |