Re: [HACKERS] bit string functions
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> "Andrew Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> I would say just set up a project on pgfoundry. > >> I agree, though I think in the long term we do need a more complete set of >> operators and functions in core. > > Considering that BIT and BIT VARYING have been removed entirely from > SQL:2003, it seems unlikely to me that we should expend our limited > resources in that particular direction. Hm, just thinking aloud here but, in our type system I wonder how hard it would be to write a special data type to use for _boolean. Offhand anyarray and anyelement might do funny things but if it supplies *all* the array operators and functions perhaps it would just work. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] bit string functions
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Andrew Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I would say just set up a project on pgfoundry. > I agree, though I think in the long term we do need a more complete set of > operators and functions in core. Considering that BIT and BIT VARYING have been removed entirely from SQL:2003, it seems unlikely to me that we should expend our limited resources in that particular direction. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] bit string functions
"Andrew Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 09:40:18AM -0700, TJ O'Donnell wrote: >> I would like to make these a part of postgresql for others to use. >> Is it more appropriate for these to be in contrib code >> or part of the postgresql proper? >> How can I contribute these? > > I would say just set up a project on pgfoundry. I agree, though I think in the long term we do need a more complete set of operators and functions in core. But we need consensus on which set people find necessary and pgfoundry is a good place to do that. I think the main guiding force will be which sets of operators and functions become necessary to have operator classes for indexes. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] bit string functions
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 09:40:18AM -0700, TJ O'Donnell wrote: > I would like to make these a part of postgresql for others to use. > Is it more appropriate for these to be in contrib code > or part of the postgresql proper? > How can I contribute these? I would say just set up a project on pgfoundry. A -- Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] The very definition of "news" is "something that hardly ever happens." --Bruce Schneier ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
[HACKERS] bit string functions
I have been working extensively with the bit string data type. I have a number of useful c-language functions to set/clear a bit, count number of bits set, inquire if a bit is set/clear, etc. I don't see functions like these as part of any SQL standard, (although I think they ought to be). I would like to make these a part of postgresql for others to use. Is it more appropriate for these to be in contrib code or part of the postgresql proper? How can I contribute these? TJ -- TJ O'Donnell, Ph.D. President, gNova Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gnova.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
