> Celia McInnis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
949 base 10 = 1110110101 base two.
select 949::bit(10) gives 1110110101 (as expected).
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
Why is that expected? Based on your reasoning for the last case I would
expect '00', since the first 10 bits of
could have been handled with some new bit handling function rather than
through a change in how things are casted?
Thanks for your help,
Celia McInnis
On Wed, 11 May 2005 01:36:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > ... Though this is slightly inconsistent in how it works wi
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 1578
Logged by: Celia McInnis
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 8.0.1
Operating system: Linux
Description:::bit(n) behaves "differently" if applied to bit strings
than integer
