Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Dear hackers, > > still in the spirit of "it may be useful to others, as it was to me, and > it does cost very little", and before submitting a small patch and being > exploded because it is obviously very stupid: > > Would it be appropriate to contribute BIT_AND and BIT_OR aggregates > for integer types, with some documentation and minimal validation? > There has been a discussion recently on pgsql-general about that. > > 1) mysql has them... it seems to be an argument here around sometimes;-) > it is in their proud list-of-features that it has and that postgresql > does not have. > > 2) each declaration is a 4-line "CREATE AGGREGATE", the underlying > functions being already available for & and | operators. > > 3) I know that one can add them if they are needed, but what > would be the point of NOT providing such simple features, and > having the basic user to have to learn about creating aggregate > functions and browse a long time in the documentation for that? > > I needed them for some application: I'm happy I know how to add them now, > but I would have been even happier if I had found them just available > without having to learn about these intesting details about postgresql > extensions.
I am confused why you would use bit on integers when there is a bit type with an AND operator: pg_catalog | & | bit | bit | bit | bitwise and -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
