Are there any open items related to the BIT type?
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > I have made a first cut at completing integration of Adriaan Joubert's
> > BIT code into the backend. There are a couple little things left to
> > do (for example, scalarltsel doesn't know what to do with BIT values)
>
Adriaan Joubert writes:
> 1. Constants. The current behaviour just seems somewhat strange, and I
> have no idea where to fix it.
>
> test=# select B'1001';
> ?column?
> --
> X9
> (1 row)
Fixed. (Prints '1001'.)
> test=# select B'1001'::bit;
> ERROR: Cannot cast this expression to
Adriaan Joubert writes:
> 1. Constants. The current behaviour just seems somewhat strange, and I
> have no idea where to fix it.
>
> test=# select B'1001';
> ?column?
> --
> X9
> (1 row)
That's because the zpbit output function chooses to represent values that
way. Whether or not it
Peter,
I've looked at the current implementation of the bit types and still
have some doubts concerning the following issues:
1. Constants. The current behaviour just seems somewhat strange, and I
have no idea where to fix it.
test=# select B'1001';
?column?
--
X9
(1 row)
te
Can someone tell me if this patch should be applied? Seems like it was
just for testing, right?
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > I have made a first cut at completing integration of Adriaan Joubert's
> > BIT code into the backend. There are a couple little things left to
> > do (for example, scalarlt
Thanks Peter. I will download tomorrow when the new snapshot is
available. So how do we find out whether hex needs to be supported? I
see what you mean with ('1001' as bit), but shouldn't that be (B'1001'
as bit)? Certainly if hex values are allowed the first version is
ambiguous. I would have to
Adriaan Joubert writes:
> Peter, I think it is a problem if the B or X are dropped from the input,
> as that is the only way to determine whether it is a binary or hex
> string.
Well, you just assume it's a binary string, because it's unclear as of yet
whether you're going to get to handle hex s
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> Adriaan Joubert writes:
>
> > > 2. We don't handle and literals correctly;
> > > the scanner converts them into integers which seems quite at variance
> > > with the spec's semantics.
> >
> > This is still a problem that needs to be fixed.
>
> I have gotten the B'1
Adriaan Joubert writes:
> > 2. We don't handle and literals correctly;
> > the scanner converts them into integers which seems quite at variance
> > with the spec's semantics.
>
> This is still a problem that needs to be fixed.
I have gotten the B'1001'-style syntax to work, but the zpbit_in
