Re: bit string functions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Gregory Stark
Subject Re: bit string functions
Date
Msg-id 87wsx0w3yu.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: bit string functions  (Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>)
Responses Re: bit string functions  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> writes:

> On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 09:40:18AM -0700, TJ O'Donnell wrote:
>> I would like to make these a part of postgresql for others to use.
>> Is it more appropriate for these to be in contrib code
>> or part of the postgresql proper?
>> How can I contribute these?
>
> I would say just set up a project on pgfoundry. 

I agree, though I think in the long term we do need a more complete set of
operators and functions in core. But we need consensus on which set people
find necessary and pgfoundry is a good place to do that.

I think the main guiding force will be which sets of operators and functions
become necessary to have operator classes for indexes.


--  Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: SSPI authentication
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: bit string functions