Re: [HACKERS] Re: bit types - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 01:46:00PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm@wallace.ece.rice.edu> writes:
> >> I clearly dropped the ball on this one.  Don't think it can go into 7.0
> >> because it would require catalog changes/initdb.  However, I would like
> 
> > Hmm, I thought the hard and fast rule was no initdb _after_ release. Surely
> > this sort of thing is what beta (especially beta1) is for?
> 
> Actually, it's not the initdb that bothers me --- it's that we'd be
> talking about dropping in code that is not only not tested, but not
> even written yet.  It seems a tad late in the 7.0 cycle for that.
> 

Agreed.

> Specifically, what's in contrib is only the C functions to support a BIT
> data type.  Not only do we not have the SQL function definitions, but we
> don't have the datatype, nor do we have the parser support needed for
> BIT and BIT VARYING (or have you forgotten that those require special
> syntax for their length specifications?)  So this code is a long way
> from being ready for prime time; it's only part of what's needed,
> not all of it.

Right, that's the _other_ current thread. ;-)

> 
> Possibly I misunderstand the rules we set for beta phase, but my
> understanding was not so much "no initdbs" as "no new-feature
> development".  This sure looks like it needs some more feature
> development...

That's how I understood it, as well. It's just that Bruce had (at one
time) offered to do the intergration/development of this type, and one
interpretation of what he posted was that he had the code, but hadn't
integrated it, because of the "no initdb" rule. Since Bruce tends to be
the man for submissions from non-core developers, I just wanted to make
sure everyone was on the same page.

On a completely unrelated note: Apparently, there was a "bug fix" to
SQL92, published in 1996, that goes by the name:

Technical Corrigendum 1:1996 to ISO/IEC 9075:1992 

According to the www.iso.ch site in Switzerland, this thing is 80
pages long. Even given the usual front matter, indices, and appendices,
there's got to be something in there that we need to know. Hmm, it's
marked as free.  Perhaps I'll see if I can order it somewhere.

Anyone seen this?

Ross
-- 
Ross J. Reedstrom, Ph.D., <reedstrm@rice.edu> 
NSBRI Research Scientist/Programmer
Computer and Information Technology Institute
Rice University, 6100 S. Main St.,  Houston, TX 77005