| From: | David Helgason <david(at)uti(dot)is> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: implemented missing bitSetBit() and bitGetBit() |
| Date: | 2004-02-04 21:02:02 |
| Message-ID: | 612783B2-5755-11D8-9EFF-000A9566DA8A@uti.is |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4. feb 2004, at 20:51, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Neil Conway wrote:
>> David Helgason <david(at)uti(dot)is> writes:
>>> I needed these, so I went and implemented them myself.
>>
>> I didn't see any followup to this: do we want to include this in the
>> main tree, contrib/, or not at all?
> getbit sounds a lot like what substring() does. So perhaps setbit
> could
> actually be handled by replace()? That would be a more general
> solution (since it would handle more than one bit at a time).
I sort of agree, but it's currently documented like I implemented it
(afaics), so it's a simple thing to include.
I feel a bit bad for not having done a full patch with test-cases and
.bki modifications etc., but it seemed a pretty daunting task (for my
schedule at least).
Hope someone can use it though.
David Helgason,
Over the Edge Entertainments
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | scott.marlowe | 2004-02-04 21:07:10 | Re: Question on database backup |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-02-04 20:48:44 | Re: Recursive queries? |