Re: Unicode support - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Unicode support
Date
Msg-id 21522.1239653744@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Unicode support  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Responses Re: Unicode support  (Greg Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
Re: Unicode support  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> This isn't about the number of bytes, but about whether or not we should 
> count characters encoded as two or more combined code points as a single 
> char or not.

It's really about whether we should support non-canonical encodings.
AFAIK that's a hack to cope with implementations that are restricted
to UTF-16, and we should Just Say No.  Clients that are sending these
things converted to UTF-8 are in violation of the standard.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jaime Casanova
Date:
Subject: Re: proposal: add columns created and altered to pg_proc and pg_class
Next
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Unicode support