| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <a(dot)joubert(at)albourne(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bit strings |
| Date: | 2001-01-19 22:34:48 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0101192324390.1322-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Any idea where we are on this?
> > Bit and hexstring literals are not handled in a reasonable fashion;
Bit string literals are handled correctly, although it occurred to me that
perhaps
#define IsA_Value(t) \
(IsA(t, Integer) || IsA(t, Float) || IsA(t, String))
should be augmented with BitString. Can someone advise?
Hex literals are still not handled correctly.
> > SQL92 sez we need a position() function for bitstrings.
We have one now.
> > Need a regression test for bit types.
We have one now.
> > scalarltsel() and friends need to cope with bit/varbit types in
> > order to make good use of indexes on bitstrings.
Not done.
> > pg_dump does not handle BIT/VARBIT lengths properly (pjw may have
> > fixed this by now).
Works fine for me.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://yi.org/peter-e/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2001-01-19 22:53:09 | RE: A couple of fishy-looking critical sections |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-01-19 22:30:22 | Re: Bit strings |