Re: bit types

From: Adriaan Joubert <a(dot)joubert(at)albourne(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: bit types
Date: 2000-03-01 20:23:27
Message-ID: 38BD7C3F.D4D34F56@albourne.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > Bruce,
> >
> > The bit-type that is in contrib is useless as it stands. Those are
> > only C-routines to implement the functionality, and there are none of
> > the SQL functions to actually make these usable. This really needs to be
> > integrated with postgres proper. I don't know how to go about this and
> > that is why I asked for help. I'm prepared to do whatever SQL function
> > definitions are needed, do the regression tests etc. Would it be better
> > to go back to the hackers mailing list to ask for help? Has this missed
> > 7.0 now? If so, we'd better remove the bit-type from contrib.
>
> I clearly dropped the ball on this one. Don't think it can go into 7.0
> because it would require catalog changes/initdb. However, I would like
> to keep it in contrib and add it as soon as 7.0 finalizes and we move to
> 7.1.

Fine by me either way. My systems still run on a non-SQL compliant bit-type I
did earlier. Whenever you get round to it, give me a shout and I'll do
whatever I can to help.

Cheers,

Adriaan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-03-01 20:23:47 Re: [HACKERS] empty dates and changing the default date behaviour
Previous Message Hannu Krosing 2000-03-01 20:13:20 Re: [HACKERS] Re: NOT {NULL|DEFERRABLE} (was: bug in 7.0)