Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Yes, definitely --- see the sole use of that macro, in outfuncs.c.
> Maybe this macro could be removed and expanded in place. That would make
> things more transparent. Or is there any other potential use?
No objection from me. The macro clearly
Tom Lane writes:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > perhaps
> > #define IsA_Value(t) \
> > (IsA(t, Integer) || IsA(t, Float) || IsA(t, String))
> > should be augmented with BitString. Can someone advise?
>
> Yes, definitely --- see the sole use of that macro, in outfuncs
OK, I will delete my copy of the email. If there is something to be
added to the TODO list, let me know.
[ People are welcome to modify it themselves too.]
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > Any idea where we are on this?
>
> > > Bit and hexstring literals are not handled in a reasonable fashion;
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> perhaps
> #define IsA_Value(t) \
> (IsA(t, Integer) || IsA(t, Float) || IsA(t, String))
> should be augmented with BitString. Can someone advise?
Yes, definitely --- see the sole use of that macro, in outfuncs.c.
This is a bug.
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Any idea where we are on this?
> > Bit and hexstring literals are not handled in a reasonable fashion;
Bit string literals are handled correctly, although it occurred to me that
perhaps
#define IsA_Value(t) \
(IsA(t, Integer) || IsA(t, Float) || IsA(t, String))
Any idea where we are on this?
> Can we get the BIT type working now that 7.1 is branched?
>
> I did some work on the BIT types a couple months ago. According to
> my notes, the following issues are still outstanding before they
> can be said to work at all:
>
> Bit and hexstring literal
Can we get the BIT type working now that 7.1 is branched?
I did some work on the BIT types a couple months ago. According to
my notes, the following issues are still outstanding before they
can be said to work at all:
Bit and hexstring literals are not handled in a reasonable fashion;
the
Can someone comment on this?
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Can we get the BIT type working now that 7.1 is branched?
> >
>
> Yep. We never quite finished the discussions before the 7.0 release. The
> outstanding issues were
>
> 1) should bit operations be allowed between bit strings of differen
