Re: bit|varbit #, xor operator

On 10/16/16 3:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> As for counting bits in a bitstring, why do we have to make that an
> operator at all?  Using a function would decrease the stress involved
> in choosing a name, and it's hard to believe that the requirement is
> so common that we need to shave a few keystrokes.  But if you must have
> an operator there's not that much wrong with using prefix # for it.

Fair enough.

>> > Related to this I'd also like to add a boolean XOR operator as that's a
>> > relatively common request/question.
> We have boolean XOR; it's spelled "<>".

I always forget about that... though, it doesn't work for boolean arrays.
-- 
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)   mobile: 512-569-9461