Re: Unicode support

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, - - <crossroads0000(at)googlemail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Unicode support
Date: 2009-04-13 20:15:44
Message-ID: 21522.1239653744@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> This isn't about the number of bytes, but about whether or not we should
> count characters encoded as two or more combined code points as a single
> char or not.

It's really about whether we should support non-canonical encodings.
AFAIK that's a hack to cope with implementations that are restricted
to UTF-16, and we should Just Say No. Clients that are sending these
things converted to UTF-8 are in violation of the standard.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2009-04-13 20:26:20 Re: Unicode support
Previous Message Jaime Casanova 2009-04-13 19:50:42 Re: proposal: add columns created and altered to pg_proc and pg_class