Re: [GENERAL] Update of bitmask type

Can I get comments on this?  Is a bit type something we want installed
by default, or in contrib?  Seems to me it should be in the main tree.


> Hi,
> 
>     here is a new version of the bitmask type. It supports hash-indices as
> well now, and fixes a bug in the definition of the <> operator.
> 
> I would appreciate it if somebody more knowledgable than myself would
> look over the index definitions. They seem to work and are used by
> postgres, so I guess they can't be all wrong. The hashing function is
> the same as that for char's and comes straight out of the postgres
> source code.
> 
> BTW, chapter 36 of the documentation could do with some additions, but I
> don't feel knowledgable enough to attempt it. E.g. it shows how to put
> an entry for the hashing into pg_amop, but never explains how to define
> the entry in pg_amproc and doesn't tell you that you need to define a
> separate hashing function. It took me a while of looking through the
> other definitions and digging through the source code to come up with a
> best guess.
> 
> Perhaps this could go into the contrib area if it passes muster, as it
> is an example of a user-defined type with indices.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adriaan

[application/x-gzip is not supported, skipping...]


--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026