> As you say, there's really no point in changing the internal > representation, and if you don't find replace() useful either, then > why are you even working on this at all?
I would like a get_bit / set_bit for bit strings, as I find them useful. get_bit could be a simple call to substring, but there's no way of doing a set_bit on a bit string as far as I know. I don't like the "replace" syntax for bit strings since it won't give you the same functionality of set_bit, plus I don't really see how someone would want to look for a bit string and replace it with another bit string. But I see that someone might want to overlay a bit string with another (this is different from "replace" since you have to tell the position where the replacing would start, instead of looking for a bit string). To sum up: 1) a new function, "get_bit", that calls substring 2) a new function, "overlay", that replaces bits (starting at a certain position) 3) a new function, "set_bit", that calls overlay > Since the latest discussion > of this is more than five years old, it's unclear that anyone even > cares any more. It seems to me that making replace overlay a > substring of bits could be a reasonable thing to do, but if nobody > actually wants it, then the simplest thing to do is remove this from > the TODO and call it good. I understand: it would be both a useful feature to me and a way to start coding postgres. But, of course, if there's no interest, I'll pass... -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
