Hi,

    I wrote routines for the postgres backend to implement the SQL types
BIT and BIT VARYING. Unfortunately I do not
know postgres well enough yet to integrate the types into the backend
myself. Bruce Momjian has kindly offered to do
this, provided that people agree that having BIT and BIT VARYING is
desirable. I will do some regression tests once the
code has been integrated with postgres.

The code is currently in the contrib/bit directory of the snapshots, so
you can look at it there. If it passes muster or if there
are any recommendations to improve the code please let me know. If there
is more I can do to help with the integration,
please let me know as well.

Thanks!

Adriaan


Fri, 28 Jan 2000 17:43:40 +0000
Adriaan Joubert <a.joubert@albourne.com>
Bit strings
>     I wrote routines for the postgres backend to implement the SQL types
> BIT and BIT VARYING. Unfortunately I do not
> know postgres well enough yet to integrate the types into the backend
> myself. Bruce Momjian has kindly offered to do
> this, provided that people agree that having BIT and BIT VARYING is
> desirable. I will do some regression tests once the
> code has been integrated with postgres.

Yes it is desirable. I'll help too, and Bruce and I will need to
coordinate to keep him from stomping all over my patches while I'm
doing some upcoming date/time changes (that's a hint Bruce! :)

> The code is currently in the contrib/bit directory of the snapshots, so
> you can look at it there. If it passes muster or if there
> are any recommendations to improve the code please let me know. If there
> is more I can do to help with the integration,
> please let me know as well.

If the code works or can be made workable we should integrate it imho.
There is not likely to be any good excuse to keep out an
SQL92-compliant type.

                     - Thomas

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

Sat, 29 Jan 2000 07:06:00 +0000
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] Bit strings
Thomas Lockhart wrote:

> If the code works or can be made workable we should integrate it imho.
> There is not likely to be any good excuse to keep out an
> SQL92-compliant type.

Nobody else replied, so I guess we can go ahead. Let me know if there is
anything I can do, or you need any explanations to the code, etc.

Adriaan


Sun, 30 Jan 2000 14:43:18 +0000
Adriaan Joubert <a.joubert@albourne.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Bit strings