| From: | Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: The "char" type versus non-ASCII characters |
| Date: | 2021-12-03 20:17:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20211203201749.GU12351@aart.rice.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 03, 2021 at 03:13:24PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> > On 12/3/21 14:42, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Right, I envisioned that ASCII behaves the same but we'd use
> >> a numeric representation for high-bit-set values. These
> >> cases could be told apart fairly easily by charin(), since
> >> the numeric representation would always be three digits.
>
> > OK, this seems the most attractive. Can we also allow 2 hex digits?
>
> I think we should pick one base and stick to it. I don't mind
> hex if you have a preference for that.
>
> regards, tom lane
+1 for hex
Regards,
Ken
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2021-12-03 20:46:04 | Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-12-03 20:13:24 | Re: The "char" type versus non-ASCII characters |