On 12/07/12 11:08, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> 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.
>
I'll implement that than (sorry for not following up on that eariler).
J
