Thread

1. Re: Review: Patch: Allow substring/replace() to get/set bit values

   Kevin Grittner <kevin.grittner@wicourts.gov> — 2010-01-20T12:45:17Z

   Leonardo F wrote:
   > New version of the patch, let me know if I can fix/change something
   > else.
   
   All issues addressed, with one tiny nit-pick -- the get_bit and
   set_bit methods are not part of the SQL standard. I took the liberty
   of removing "SQL-standard" from the documentation of these functions
   so that I can mark this "Ready for Committer".
    
   Thanks for the patch!
   
   -Kevin
   
   
   

2. Re: Review: Patch: Allow substring/replace() to get/set bit values

   Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists@yahoo.it> — 2010-01-20T13:00:46Z

   > All issues addressed, with one tiny nit-pick -- the get_bit and
   > set_bit methods are not part of the SQL standard. 
   
   
   Damn! I completely forgot to mention that I had no idea if what I wrote
   in the docs made any sense...
   
   Well thank you for your thorough review.
   
   
         
   
   

3. Re: Review: Patch: Allow substring/replace() to get/set bit values

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2010-01-25T21:00:39Z

   "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
   > Leonardo F wrote:
   >> New version of the patch, let me know if I can fix/change something
   >> else.
   
   > All issues addressed, with one tiny nit-pick -- the get_bit and
   > set_bit methods are not part of the SQL standard. I took the liberty
   > of removing "SQL-standard" from the documentation of these functions
   > so that I can mark this "Ready for Committer".
   
   Applied with some further editorialization.  When I looked at how
   OVERLAY(text) was implemented, I didn't like it at all, so I took the
   liberty of transforming it to C code and then duplicating that
   implementation for bit and bytea.  I doubt this would make any
   performance difference in simple cases, but it will have less surprise
   factor.
   
   			regards, tom lane