Thread: Re: BIT datatype (Fixed)
Hi, here is an updated version of the bit type with a bugfix and all the necessary SQL functions defined. This should replace what is currently in contrib. I'd appreciate any comments on what is there. Kind regards, Adriaan
Attachment
Applied. > Hi, > > here is an updated version of the bit type with a bugfix and all the necessary > SQL functions defined. This should replace what is currently in contrib. I'd > appreciate any comments on what is there. > > Kind regards, > > Adriaan [Attachment, skipping...] -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
> here is an updated version of the bit type with a bugfix and all the necessary > SQL functions defined. This should replace what is currently in contrib. I'd > appreciate any comments on what is there. I'm hoping to get a chance to look at it fairly soon. It's already been committed to the tree... - Thomas -- Thomas Lockhart lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu South Pasadena, California
> > here is an updated version of the bit type with a bugfix and all the necessary > > SQL functions defined. This should replace what is currently in contrib. I'd > > appreciate any comments on what is there. > > I'm hoping to get a chance to look at it fairly soon. It's already > been committed to the tree... The bits never even got cold before it was applied. :-) -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > here is an updated version of the bit type with a bugfix and all the necessary > > > SQL functions defined. This should replace what is currently in contrib. I'd > > > appreciate any comments on what is there. > > > > I'm hoping to get a chance to look at it fairly soon. It's already > > been committed to the tree... > > The bits never even got cold before it was applied. :-) Thanks! I spent a day with a debugger to find a silly error, but it all does seem to behave now. I could not use the name BIT for the example type, as it is reserved. I also noticed that I could not use BITS(6) for a user-defined type to specify a length. A last problem is that there are two types of output routines, one returning a bit string in hex format, and another returning it in binary format. I seem to recall that there once was a discussion on adding a C-string type for situations like this, so that one output-type would be the default, but the second could be made available through a function. I also didn't do anything to make these indexable. Any suggestions or complaints, please let me know. Adriaan