Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > 2010/8/11 Boszormenyi Zoltan <z...@cybertec.at>: >> Shouldn't it at least be documented in more depth? Say, get_bit(, N) >> provides the Nth bit (0-based) counting from the leftmost bit? >> I would certainly appreciate a warning spelled out about this >> so if you convert a number to bitstring of length N and you want the >> Mth bit (according to any programming language) then you need to use >> get_bit(..., N-1-M).
> The fact that bit-strings subscript from the left rather than from the > right seems pretty odd to me, but it is documented. It's not odd if you think of them as strings, rather than some weird representation of an integer. > I wouldn't object > to adding a note to somewhere around here, if we can think of a > suitable way to word it: > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/functions-bitstring.html Yeah, it really needed something, especially since the docs presented get_bit/set_bit as being not interestingly different from the bytea versions. (They do act the same at the physical level, but because the I/O representation of bit and bytea is so different, I think they have to be described differently.) I committed some additional text for this. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
