On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 05:18:57PM +0300, Adriaan Joubert wrote:
> We missed the deadline for this release. It will be in 7.1. I've written the C
> routines to do the internal work, but didn't know where to start with the
> integration, so it all got delayed a bit.

Believe it or not, this is good news for me as it reduces my work for 7.0 to
one bug report. :-)

Michael
-- 
Michael Meskes                         | Go SF 49ers!
Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz    | Go Rhein Fire!
Tel.: (+49) 2431/72651                 | Use Debian GNU/Linux!
Email: Michael@Fam-Meskes.De           | Use PostgreSQL!

Thu, 30 Mar 2000 20:17:50 +0200
Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org>
Re: BIT datatype
> > We missed the deadline for this release. It will be in 7.1. I've written the C
> > routines to do the internal work, but didn't know where to start with the
> > integration, so it all got delayed a bit.
> Believe it or not, this is good news for me as it reduces my work for 7.0 to
> one bug report. :-)

btw, I've just finished taking the old ecpg man page and putting it
into the ecpg-ref.sgml reference page (it had been placed in that file
but was mostly commented out).

I'm committing this right now, and if anyone who has expressed
interest in ecpg docos wants to help augment it, we probably have a
few days left to do so.

If someone is interested but does not have access to the source tree,
let me know and I can mail the files ;)

                   - Thomas

-- 
Thomas Lockhart				lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California

Fri, 31 Mar 2000 06:24:20 +0000
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: BIT datatype
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 06:24:20AM +0000, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> btw, I've just finished taking the old ecpg man page and putting it
> into the ecpg-ref.sgml reference page (it had been placed in that file
> but was mostly commented out).

Thanks.
> 
> I'm committing this right now, and if anyone who has expressed
> interest in ecpg docos wants to help augment it, we probably have a
> few days left to do so.

I surely won't. I'm expecting 12 working hour days for every single day
until I go on vacation. 

There is one open problem with ecpg. But I do not understand it completely
so far. Maybe I'm a bit brain locked but I'm clueless right now.

I attach a small test program m.pgc. This program dumps core in libecpg
because the char array is not correctly accessed.

Then I rewrote it in that I moved the test() function into main (attached as
n.pgc) et voila all is well. 

The call to ECPGdo however is identical. If anyone has an idea what's going
on PLEASE tell me.

Michael
-- 
Michael Meskes                         | Go SF 49ers!
Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz    | Go Rhein Fire!
Tel.: (+49) 2431/72651                 | Use Debian GNU/Linux!
Email: Michael@Fam-Meskes.De           | Use PostgreSQL!

Fri, 31 Mar 2000 12:02:45 +0200
Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org>
Re: BIT datatype
Hi,

    here is an updated version of the bit type with a bugfix and all the necessary
SQL functions defined. This should replace what is currently in contrib. I'd
appreciate any comments on what is there.

Kind regards,

Adriaan
Mon, 03 Apr 2000 20:36:48 +0300
Adriaan Joubert <a.joubert@albourne.com>
Re: BIT datatype  (Fixed)
Applied.

> Hi,
> 
>     here is an updated version of the bit type with a bugfix and all the necessary
> SQL functions defined. This should replace what is currently in contrib. I'd
> appreciate any comments on what is there.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Adriaan

[Attachment, skipping...]


-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Mon, 3 Apr 2000 16:49:11 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: BIT datatype  (Fixed)
> >     here is an updated version of the bit type with a bugfix and all the necessary
> > SQL functions defined. This should replace what is currently in contrib. I'd
> > appreciate any comments on what is there.
> 
> I'm hoping to get a chance to look at it fairly soon. It's already
> been committed to the tree...

The bits never even got cold before it was applied.  :-)

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Tue, 4 Apr 2000 10:44:20 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: BIT datatype  (Fixed)
>     here is an updated version of the bit type with a bugfix and all the necessary
> SQL functions defined. This should replace what is currently in contrib. I'd
> appreciate any comments on what is there.

I'm hoping to get a chance to look at it fairly soon. It's already
been committed to the tree...

                     - Thomas

-- 
Thomas Lockhart				lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California

Tue, 04 Apr 2000 14:46:29 +0000
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: BIT datatype  (Fixed)
Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > >     here is an updated version of the bit type with a bugfix and all the necessary
> > > SQL functions defined. This should replace what is currently in contrib. I'd
> > > appreciate any comments on what is there.
> >
> > I'm hoping to get a chance to look at it fairly soon. It's already
> > been committed to the tree...
>
> The bits never even got cold before it was applied.  :-)

Thanks! I spent a day with a debugger to find a silly error, but it all does seem to
behave now. I could not use the name BIT for the example type, as it is reserved. I also
noticed that I could not use BITS(6) for a user-defined type to specify a length. A last
problem is that there are two types of output routines, one returning a bit string in hex
format, and another returning it in binary format. I seem to recall that there once was a
discussion on adding a C-string type for situations like this, so that one output-type
would be the default, but the second could be made available through a function.  I also
didn't do anything to make these indexable.

Any suggestions or complaints, please let me know.

Adriaan


Wed, 05 Apr 2000 08:37:43 +0300
Adriaan Joubert <a.joubert@albourne.com>
Re: BIT datatype  (Fixed)