Re: [HACKERS] Question about bit.h and bit.c

Files removed. --- Sailesh Krishnamurthy wrote: > > "Tom" == Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom> Sailesh Krishnamurthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Why is it that bit.h is in src/include/utils and

Re: [HACKERS] Question about bit.h and bit.c

> "Tom" == Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Tom> Sailesh Krishnamurthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Why is it that bit.h is in src/include/utils and bit.c is in >> src/backend/lib ? Tom> Possibly a more interesting question is why haven't we Tom> ditched them both ..

Re: [HACKERS] Question about bit.h and bit.c

Sailesh Krishnamurthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Why is it that bit.h is in src/include/utils and bit.c is in > src/backend/lib ? Possibly a more interesting question is why haven't we ditched them both ... AFAICT none of the bit.c routines are used anymore. regards, t

[HACKERS] Question about bit.h and bit.c

I have a small nit Why is it that bit.h is in src/include/utils and bit.c is in src/backend/lib ? I can never for the life of me remember which is in which :-) -- Pip-pip Sailesh http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~sailesh ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP