From: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ISO-8859-1 encoding not enforced? |
Date: | 2005-04-12 08:50:43 |
Message-ID: | 3237.24.211.165.134.1113295843.squirrel@www.dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane said:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> Is PostgreSQL supposed to enforce a LATIN1/ISO-8859-1 encoding if
>> that's the database encoding?
>
> AFAIK, there are no illegal characters in 8859-1, except \0 which we do
> reject.
>
Perhaps Chris is confusing ISO/IEC 8859-1 with ISO-8859-1 a.k.a. Latin-1.
According to the wikipedia,
"The IANA has approved ISO-8859-1 (note the extra hyphen), a superset of
ISO/IEC 8859-1, for use on the Internet. This character map, or character
set or code page, supplements the assignments made by ISO/IEC 8859-1,
mapping control characters to code values 00-1F, 7F, and 80-9F. It thus
provides for 256 characters via every possible 8-bit value.
[snip]
The name Latin-1 is an informal alias [for ISO-8859-1] unrecognized by ISO
or the IANA, but is perhaps meaningful in some computer software."
But let's not start accepting \0 ;-)
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-04-12 08:51:49 | Test coverage for external sorting |
Previous Message | Michael Paesold | 2005-04-12 06:39:09 | Re: System vs non-system casts |