Re: bit strings - anyone working on them? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Stephan Szabo
Subject Re: bit strings - anyone working on them?
Date
Msg-id 20030422203314.O76529-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: bit strings - anyone working on them?  ("Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:

> > > ISTM we should return B'11' for this. ie. build the smallest varbit that
> > > contains the result, and return it.
> >
> > ISTM that the answer would be closer to B'10' according to the spec.  The
> > spec asks for right extension by 0 when casting to a larger size fixed bit
> > string.
>
> Huh??? That makes no sense at all!!!

Yeah, as Philip says, I think the spec writers were assuming that left
most bit is LSB. It makes more sense with the way the casting and
substring are defined (but would mean that our int->bit casts are wierd
then)



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Neil Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: CLOSE command tag
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: bit strings - anyone working on them?