| From: | "stevegy" <stevegy(at)126(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "tom lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-general(at)postgr" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: & |
| Date: | 2006-10-05 12:30:29 |
| Message-ID: | 4524FAE5.000072.19567@bj126app12.126.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi Tom,
Thank you for your reply.
I think the character map is a problem. So I see the choices for the Chinese user is:
1. use the EUC_CN
2. use the UTF-8
The first choice is what i'm using and the problem is clear to me. I can not store some special characters into the PostgreSQL with this encoding because the character is out of range.
The second what i am testing now still in some strange issue for the sorting order.
So, any other choice for continuing use the PostgreSQL in my situation?
-- Steve Yao
-----原始邮件-----
发件人:"Tom Lane"
发送时间:2006-10-05 09:50:56
收件人:"stevegy"
抄送:"martijn van oosterhout" ,"pgsql-general(at)postgr"
主题:Re: [GENERAL] H
"stevegy" <stevegy(at)126(dot)com> writes:
> I really want to know why the server side encoding for GB18030 is not supported?
Because it overlaps the ASCII character set, ie, it has multibyte
characters in which some of the bytes don't have the high bit set.
That creates too many parsing risks for us to be willing to deal
with it inside the backend.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Bauer | 2006-10-05 12:35:50 | Re: Major Performance decrease after some hours |
| Previous Message | Emanuele Rocca | 2006-10-05 12:21:11 | Re: UNIQUE constraints on function results |