Thread: bit string functions
I have been working extensively with the bit string data type. I have a number of useful c-language functions to set/clear a bit, count number of bits set, inquire if a bit is set/clear, etc. I don't see functions like these as part of any SQL standard, (although I think they ought to be). 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? TJ -- TJ O'Donnell, Ph.D. President, gNova Inc. tjo@gnova.com http://www.gnova.com
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. A -- Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca The very definition of "news" is "something that hardly ever happens." --Bruce Schneier
"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
Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> writes:
>> 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.
Considering that BIT and BIT VARYING have been removed entirely from
SQL:2003, it seems unlikely to me that we should expend our limited
resources in that particular direction.
regards, tom lane
"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes: >> "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> writes: >>> 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. > > Considering that BIT and BIT VARYING have been removed entirely from > SQL:2003, it seems unlikely to me that we should expend our limited > resources in that particular direction. Hm, just thinking aloud here but, in our type system I wonder how hard it would be to write a special data type to use for _boolean. Offhand anyarray and anyelement might do funny things but if it supplies *all* the array operators and functions perhaps it would just work. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com