Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] UNICODE/UTF-8 on win32 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

Look at the upper/lower I sent to the list, they should be able to
replace upper/lower for the utf8 encoding.... (and works independent of
locale)..

... John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Momjian
> Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 10:35 PM
> To: Tatsuo Ishii
> Cc: mha@sollentuna.net; tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us;
> pgsql-hackers-win32@postgresql.org; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-hackers-win32] UNICODE/UTF-8 on win32
>
>
> Where are we on this?  As far as I can tell, we never disabled UTF8 on
> Win32 in our code.  The only thing we did do was to disable
> UTF8 in pginstaller.  See this FAQ item:
>
>
> http://pginstaller.projects.postgresql.org/faq/FAQ_windows.html#2.6
>
> Is the current setup OK?  Should we allow UTF8 on Win32 for
> languages that can use C locale, like Asian languages?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
>
> Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > I do understand the problem, but don't undertstand the decision you
> > guys made. The fact that UPPER/LOWER and some other
> functions does not
> > work in win32 is surely a problem for some languages, but not a
> > problem for otheres. For example, Japanese (and probably Chinese and
> > Korean) does not have a concept upper/lower. So the fact
> UPPER/LOWER
> > does not work with UTF-8/win32 is not problem for Japanese (and for
> > some other languages). Just using C locale with UTF-8 is enough in
> > this case.
> >
> > In summary, I think you guys are going to overkill the multibyte
> > support functionality on UTF-8/win32 because of the fact that some
> > langauges do not work.
> >
> > Same thing can be said to EUC-JP, EUC-CN and EUC-KR and so
> on as well.
> >
> > I strongly object the policy to try to unconditionaly disable UTF-8
> > support on win32.
> > --
> > Tatsuo Ishii
> >
> > From: "Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net>
> > Subject: RE: [pgsql-hackers-win32] UNICODE/UTF-8 on win32
> > Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 14:48:04 +0100
> > Message-ID:
> > <6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE4764A4@algol.sollentuna.se>
> >
> > > UNICODE/UTF-8 does not work on the win32 server. The
> reason is that
> > > strcoll() and friends don't work with it. To support it
> on win32, it
> > > needs to be converted to UTF16 and use the wide-character
> versions
> > > of the fucntion. Which we do not do.
> > > (See
> > >
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers-win32/2004-11/msg00036.
> > > php
> > > and
> > >
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers-win32/2004-12/msg00106.
> > > php)
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't *think* we need to disable ito n the client. AFAIK, the
> > > client interfaces don't use any of these functions, and I've seen
> > > reports of people using that long before we had a native
> win32 server.
> > >
> > >
> > > //Magnus
> > >
> > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: Tatsuo Ishii [mailto:t-ishii@sra.co.jp]
> > > >Sent: den 1 januari 2005 01:10
> > > >To: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
> > > >Cc: Magnus Hagander; pgsql-hackers-win32@postgresql.org
> > > >Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] UNICODE/UTF-8 on win32
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Sorry, but I don't subscribe to pgsql-hackers-win32 list. What's
> > > >the problem here?
> > > >--
> > > >Tatsuo Ishii
> > > >
> > > >> "Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net> writes:
> > > >> > We know it's broken and won't be fixed for 8.0.
> > > >>
> > > >> > If we just #ifndef WIN32 the definitions in
> > > >utils/mb/encnames.c it won't
> > > >> > be possible to select that encoding, right? Will that have
> > > >any other
> > > >> > unwanted effects (such as breaking client encodings)? If
> > > >not, I suggest
> > > >> > this is done.
> > > >>
> > > >> I believe the subscripts in those arrays have to match the
> > > >> encoding enum type, so you can't just ifdef out
> individual entries.
> > > >>
> > > >> > (Or perhaps something can be done in
> pg_valid_server_encoding?)
> > > >>
> > > >> Making the valid_server_encoding function reject it might work.
> > > >> Tatsuo-san would know for sure.
> > > >>
> > > >> Should we also reject it as a client encoding, or does
> that work OK?
> > > >>
> > > >>             regards, tom lane
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of
> > broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to
> > majordomo@postgresql.org
> >
>
> --
>   Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
>   pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
>   +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
>   +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
> Pennsylvania 19073
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index
> scan if your
>       joining column's datatypes do not match
>
>