| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, Adriaan Joubert <a(dot)joubert(at)albourne(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: BIT/BIT VARYING status |
| Date: | 2000-08-21 05:51:11 |
| Message-ID: | 39A0C34F.F4657784@alumni.caltech.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> We could solve #2 fairly easily if we don't mind breaking backwards
> compatibility with existing apps that expect B'101' or X'5' to be
> equivalent to 5. I'm not sure how to handle it without breaking that
> compatibility. Thoughts?
Break "compatibility". I implemented the syntax in the lexer so that we
could deal with it somehow (rather than just dying); but we should
always be willing to implement something the right way when we can. In
this case (and probably many others coming up ;) there is no great glory
in the original implementation...
- Thomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Mount | 2000-08-21 06:34:42 | RE: multiple transactions |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-08-21 05:42:13 | fmgr rewrite milestone |