> Can't really blame Windows on that. On Windows, we don't require that the
> encoding and LC_CTYPE's charset match. The OP used UTF-8 encoding in the
> server, but LC_CTYPE="English_United Kingdom.1252", ie. LC_CTYPE implies
> WIN1252 encoding. We allow that and it generally works on Windows
> because in varstr_cmp, we use MultiByteToWideChar() followed by
> wcscoll_l(), which doesn't care about the charset implied by LC_CTYPE.
> But for isupper(), it matters.
Does this mean that the UTF-8 messing up would disappear if the database were using a different locale for LC_CTYPE? If
so,which locale should I use?
This would be useful for a temporary workaround.
> > We talked about this before and went off into the weeds about whether
> > it was sensible to try to use towlower() and whether that wouldn't
> > create undesirably platform-sensitive results. I wonder though if we
> > couldn't just fix this code to not do anything to high-bit-set bytes
> > in multibyte encodings.
>
> Yeah, we should do that. It makes no sense to call isupper or tolower on
> bytes belonging to multi-byte characters.
Actually, I would expect that 'create table HÄUSER (...)' would create a table named 'häuser', and not a table named
'hÄuser',so towlower seems the right choice IMHO.
Martin
