Re: Unicode support - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Unicode support
Date
Msg-id 12906.1239726401@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Unicode support  (Greg Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: Unicode support  ("David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>)
Re: Unicode support  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Greg Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> What's really at issue is "what is a string?". That is, it a sequence
> of characters or a sequence of code points. If it's the former then we
> would also have to prohibit certain strings such as U&'\0301'
> entirely. And we have to make substr() pick out the right number of
> code points, etc.

Another question is "what is the purpose of a database"?  To me it would
be quite the wrong thing for the DB to not store what is presented, as
long as it's considered legal.  Normalization of legal variant forms
seems pretty questionable.  So I'm with the camp that says this is the
application's responsibility.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: proposal: add columns created and altered to pg_proc and pg_class
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: psql with "Function Type" in \df