Re: Unicode upper() bug still present

From: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: hannu(at)tm(dot)ee
Cc: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Unicode upper() bug still present
Date: 2003-10-20 12:37:15
Message-ID: 20031020.213715.74754803.t-ishii@sra.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Tom Lane kirjutas E, 20.10.2003 kell 03:35:
> > Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> > > There is a bug in Unicode upper() which has been present since 7.2:
> >
> > We don't support upper/lower in multibyte character sets, and can't as
> > long as the functionality is dependent on <ctype.h>'s toupper()/tolower().
> > It's been suggested that we could use <wctype.h> where available.
> > However there are a bunch of issues that would have to be solved to make
> > that happen. (How do we convert between the database character encoding
> > and the wctype representation?
>
> How do we do it for sorting ?
>
> > How do we even find out what
> > representation the current locale setting expects to use?)
>
> Why not use the same locale settings as for sorting (i.e. databse
> encoding) until we have a proper multi-locale support in the backend ?

There's absolutely no relationship between database encoding and
locale. IMO depending on the system locale is a completely wrong
design decision and we should go toward for having our own collate
data. (I think Oracle does this way)
--
Tatsuo Ishii

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2003-10-20 12:42:45 Re: Unicode upper() bug still present
Previous Message Paul Vernon 2003-10-20 12:05:26 Re: Dreaming About Redesigning SQL