Any idea where we are on this?
> >>>> Can we get the BIT type working now that 7.1 is branched?
>
> I did some work on the BIT types a couple months ago. According to
> my notes, the following issues are still outstanding before they
> can be said to work at all:
>
> Bit and hexstring literals are not handled in a reasonable fashion;
> the scanner converts them to integer constants which is bogus.
> Probably they need to be converted to some generic 'UNKNOWNBITSTRING'
> pseudo-type that can later be coerced to a specific bitstring type.
> I didn't touch this because it seems to open up the Pandora's box
> of unknown-constant handling, for which we do not have a good
> general solution.
>
> SQL92 sez we need a position() function for bitstrings.
>
> Need a regression test for bit types.
>
> scalarltsel() and friends need to cope with bit/varbit types in
> order to make good use of indexes on bitstrings.
>
> pg_dump does not handle BIT/VARBIT lengths properly (pjw may have
> fixed this by now).
>
> regards, tom lane
>
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us 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,
Pennsylvania19026