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
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 |