> > Would it be appropriate to contribute BIT_AND and BIT_OR aggregates
>
> I am confused why you would use bit on integers
Well, (I think) I need them to manipulate pg_catalog's aclitem bitfields.
I plea not guilty for the design of pg_catalog;-)
Moreover, I added aclitem accessors which return INT4 in a recent patch
that you kindly applied.
> when there is a bit type with an AND operator:
> pg_catalog | & | bit | bit | bit | bitwise and
Sure. "&" is also available for all integer types.
BTW, I'm arguing about AGGREGATE functions, and there is no aggregate
functions at the time, neither for int* nor for bit.
SELECT BIT_OR(aclitem_privs(...)) AS effective_privs
FROM ...
WHERE aclitem_grantee(...)=... AND ... ;
Or maybe I cannot understand why you're confused?
--
Fabien Coelho - coelho@cri.ensmp.fr