On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 5:11 AM, Alexander Korotkov <
aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> MULE also looks problematic. The code that you've written isn't
>> symmetric with the opposite conversion, unlike what you did in all
>> other cases, and I don't understand why. I'm also somewhat baffled by
>> the reverse conversion: it treats a multi-byte sequence beginning with
>> a byte for which IS_LCPRV1(x) returns true as invalid if there are
>> less than 3 bytes available, but it only reads two; similarly, for
>> IS_LCPRV2(x), it demands 4 bytes but converts only 3.
>
> Should we save existing pg_wchar representation for MULE encoding? Probably,
> we can modify it like in 0.1 version of patch in order to make it more
> transparent.
