> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of
> Dennis Bjorklund
> Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 10:48 PM
> To: Takehiko Abe
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] UNICODE characters above 0x10000
>
> On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, Takehiko Abe wrote:
>
> It looked like you sent the last mail only to me and not the
> list. I assume it was a misstake and I send the reply to both.
>
> > > Is there a specific reason you want to restrict it to 24 bits?
> >
> > ISO 10646 is said to have removed its private use codepoints outside
> > of the Unicode 0 - 10FFFF range to ensure the compatibility with Unicode.
> >
> > see Section C.2 and C.3 of Unicode 4.0 Appendix C
> "Relationship to ISO
> > 10646": <http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.0/appC.pdf>.
>
> The one and only reason for allowing 31 bit is that it's
> defined by iso 10646. In practice there is probably no one
> that uses the upper part of
> 10646 so not supporting it will most likely not hurt anyone.
>
>
> I'm happy either way so I will put my voice on letting PG use
> unicode (not ISO 10646) and restrict it to 24 bits. By the
> time someone wants (if ever) iso 10646 we probably have
> support for different charsets and can easily handle both at
> the same time.
>
Point taken.
Since we're supporting UTF8, and not ISO 10646.
Now, is it really 24 bits tho?
Afaict, it's really 21 (0 - 10FFFF or 0 - xxx10000 11111111 11111111)
This would require that we suport 4 byte sequences
(11110100 10001111 10111111 10111111 = 10FFFF)
> --
> /Dennis Björklund
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>
>
Regards,
John Hansen
