Re: \xDD patch for 7.5devel

From: Jason Godden <jasongodden(at)optushome(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Markus Bertheau <twanger(at)bluetwanger(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: \xDD patch for 7.5devel
Date: 2003-11-05 20:43:07
Message-ID: 200311060743.07987.jasongodden@optushome.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 06:25 am, Markus Bertheau wrote:
> В Срд, 05.11.2003, в 16:25, Tom Lane пишет:
> > > +#define HEXVALUE(c) (((c)>='a') ? ((c)-87) : (((c)>='A') ? ((c)-55) :
> > > ((c)-'0')))
> >
> > This seems excessively dependent on the assumption that the character
> > set is ASCII. Why have you hard-coded numeric equivalents into this
> > macro?
>
> What not ASCII compatible character sets are out there in use still
> today?

Ah, yes - didn't even think about the character sets. If thats the case then
octal needs attention as well because it makes a similar assumption. Peter
Eisentraut commented that this should be in the string literal parser.
Should this be the case? and if so should i migrate both octal and hex to
this parser?

Rgds,

Jason

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Larry Rosenman 2003-11-05 20:47:17 Re: \xDD patch for 7.5devel
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2003-11-05 20:37:52 Re: Performance features the 4th