On 07.07.2012 00:12, Jan Urbański wrote:
> On 06/07/12 22:47, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On fre, 2012-07-06 at 18:53 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>>> What shall we do about those? Ignore them? Document that if you're sing
>>>> one of these encodings then PL/Python with Python 2 will be crippled
>>>> and
>>>> with Python 3 just won't work?
>>>
>>> We could convert to UTF-8, and use the PostgreSQL functions to convert
>>> from UTF-8 to the server encoding. Double conversion might be slow, but
>>> I think it would be better than failing.
>>
>> Actually, we already do the other direction that way
>> (PLyUnicode_FromStringAndSize) , so maybe it would be more consistent to
>> always use this.
>>
>> I would hesitate to use this as a kind of fallback, because then we
>> would sometimes be using PostgreSQL's recoding tables and sometimes
>> Python's recoding tables, which could became confusing.
>
> So you're in favour of doing unicode -> bytes by encoding with UTF-8 and
> then using the server's encoding functions?
Sounds reasonable to me. The extra conversion between UTF-8 and UCS-2
should be quite fast, and it would be good to be consistent in the way
we do conversions in both directions.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
