From: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: What's a correct or good Encoding for Postgres 9.1.2? |
Date: | 2012-05-30 17:54:07 |
Message-ID: | 4FC65EBF.10005@hogranch.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 05/30/12 10:17 AM, Khangelani Gama wrote:
> So talking about compatibility, you are saying we can continue using
> UTF-8?, but this will create more work for us because most of our
> scripts assume that encoding is SQL_ASCII hence we want continue
> using SQL_ASCII in Postgres 9.1.2.
SQL_ASCII is not really an encoding, its saying "this data has no
encoding at all, its just bytes". UTF-8 will reject any data thats not
properly UTF8 encoded.
converting from 'undefined' encoding to a rigorously enforced encoding
is problematic. On the other hand, working in SQL_ASCII has all kinda
ugly issues, like length(somestring) is just counting bytes, and not
characters if the string happens to be a multibyte encoded entity.
collation order is just binary. upper/lower don't work on anything
other than USASCII (eg, accented characters are ignored).
sounds to me like you're stuck in SQL_ASCII
--
john r pierce N 37, W 122
santa cruz ca mid-left coast
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Khangelani Gama | 2012-05-30 18:11:54 | Re: What's a correct or good Encoding for Postgres 9.1.2? |
Previous Message | John R Pierce | 2012-05-30 17:50:01 | Re: Postgres no longer starts |