On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jim Nasby writes:
>> Personally I think it was a mistake to use # for intersection. Range
>> doesn't do that (using * instead), and AFAICT PostGIS doesn't either
>> (preferring &). So I propose
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 10/17/16 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Jim Nasby writes:
>>
>>> On 10/16/16 3:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>
Related to this I'd also like to add a boolean XOR operator as that's a
>
On 10/17/16 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby writes:
On 10/16/16 3:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Related to this I'd also like to add a boolean XOR operator as that's a
relatively common request/question.
We have boolean XOR; it's spelled "<>".
I always forget
Jim Nasby writes:
> On 10/16/16 3:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Related to this I'd also like to add a boolean XOR operator as that's a
>>> relatively common request/question.
>> We have boolean XOR; it's spelled "<>".
> I always forget about that...
Maybe it should be
On 10/16/16 3:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
As for counting bits in a bitstring, why do we have to make that an
operator at all? Using a function would decrease the stress involved
in choosing a name, and it's hard to believe that the requirement is
so common that we need to shave a few keystrokes.
Jim Nasby writes:
> Personally I think it was a mistake to use # for intersection. Range
> doesn't do that (using * instead), and AFAICT PostGIS doesn't either
> (preferring &). So I propose renaming those operators, as well as the
> XOR ones. I think ^^ is pretty
Related to [1], I want to add an operator that returns the count of set
(or unset) bits in a bit|varbit input. Given the number of times people
ask "how can I get a count of NULL fields" and similar, I expect this to
become quite popular. The obvious choice would be to use #, but I was
rather