Re: Shouldn't non-MULTIBYTE backend refuse to start in MB database?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Shouldn't non-MULTIBYTE backend refuse to start in MB database?
Date: 2001-02-16 03:55:47
Message-ID: 10708.982295747@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> Oh, I see. So the question still remains: can a MULTIBYTE-aware backend
> ever use a sort order different from strcmp() order? (That is, not as
> a result of LOCALE, but just because of the non-SQL-ASCII encoding.)
>>
>> According to the code, no, because varstr_cmp() doesn't pay attention to
>> the multibyte status. Presumably strcmp() and strcoll() don't either.

> Right.

OK, so I guess this comes down to a judgment call: should we insert the
check in the non-MULTIBYTE case, or not? I still think it's safest to
do so, but I'm not sure what you want to do.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ryan Kirkpatrick 2001-02-16 04:53:52 Re: Re: Recovery of PGSQL after system crash failing!!!
Previous Message Tatsuo Ishii 2001-02-16 02:14:39 Re: Shouldn't non-MULTIBYTE backend refuse to start in MB database?