| From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: bitwise and/or aggregate functions? |
| Date: | 2004-04-28 06:46:09 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.58.0404280836130.28436@sablons.cri.ensmp.fr |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Would it be appropriate to contribute BIT_AND and BIT_OR aggregates
>
> I am confused why you would use bit on integers
Well, (I think) I need them to manipulate pg_catalog's aclitem bitfields.
I plea not guilty for the design of pg_catalog;-)
Moreover, I added aclitem accessors which return INT4 in a recent patch
that you kindly applied.
> when there is a bit type with an AND operator:
> pg_catalog | & | bit | bit | bit | bitwise and
Sure. "&" is also available for all integer types.
BTW, I'm arguing about AGGREGATE functions, and there is no aggregate
functions at the time, neither for int* nor for bit.
SELECT BIT_OR(aclitem_privs(...)) AS effective_privs
FROM ...
WHERE aclitem_grantee(...)=... AND ... ;
Or maybe I cannot understand why you're confused?
--
Fabien Coelho - coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-04-28 07:07:59 | Re: bitwise and/or aggregate functions? |
| Previous Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2004-04-28 06:30:04 | Re: PITR Phase 2 - Design Planning |