On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Leonardo F <m_li...@yahoo.it> wrote: >> 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
That seems reasonable to me. Not sure what others think. >> 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... I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. I just wasn't sure what you were trying to do, but it's more clear now. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
