Re: [HACKERS] Implications of multi-byte support in a distribution - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Milan Zamazal
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Implications of multi-byte support in a distribution
Date
Msg-id 87hfle51hq.fsf@pdm.pvt.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Implications of multi-byte support in a distribution  (Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
>>>>> "TL" == Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
   >> That shouldn't be too difficult, if we have an encoding   >> infomation with each text column or literal. Maybe
nowis the   >> time to introuce NCHAR?
 
   TL> I've been waiting for a go-ahead from folks who would use   TL> it. imho the way to do it is to use Postgres'
typesystem to   TL> implement it, rather than, for example, encoding "type"   TL> information into each string. We can
alsodefine a "default   TL> encoding" for each database as a new column in pg_database...
 

What about sorting?  Would it be possible to solve it in similar way?
If I'm not mistaken, there is currently no good way to use two different
kinds of sorting for one postmaster instance?

Milan Zamazal


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: José Soares
Date:
Subject: SELECT BUG
Next
From: Milan Zamazal
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Implications of multi-byte support in a distribution