| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>, Barry Lind <barry(at)xythos(dot)com>, chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: help with bison |
| Date: | 2002-04-12 05:29:20 |
| Message-ID: | 3CB670B0.6E570FBE@fourpalms.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> The other day there was a discussion around the fact that X'ffff' will
> get converted into an integer constant...
> ... while SQL99 says that this syntax *should* be used to specify a
> "binary string". It looks like the hex-to-integer magic actually occurs
> in the lexer, and then the integer value of 65535 is passed to the
> parser as an ICONST. I'm wondering if changing the lexer to make this a
> conversion to a properly escaped bytea input string, and passing it to
> the parser as a string constant would speed things up?
What else is described as a "binary string" in the spec? I would have
guessed that this would map to a bit field type (and maybe even had
looked it up at one time).
Is B'00010001' also described as a "binary string" also, or is it more
explicitly tied to bit fields?
- Thomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jean-Michel POURE | 2002-04-12 07:25:46 | Various issues |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2002-04-12 04:41:34 | Re: 7.3 schedule |