Re: A rough roadmap for internationalization fixes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Kurt Roeckx <Q(at)ping(dot)be>
Cc: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org, peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: A rough roadmap for internationalization fixes
Date: 2003-11-25 21:19:05
Message-ID: 8686.1069795145@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Kurt Roeckx <Q(at)ping(dot)be> writes:
> You can encode unicode in different ways, and UTF-8 is only one
> of them. Is there a problem with using UCS-2 (except that it
> would require more storage for ASCII)?

UCS-2 is impractical without some *extremely* wide-ranging changes in
the backend. To take just the most obvious point, doesn't it require
allowing embedded zero bytes in text strings?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Grzegorz Dostatni 2003-11-25 22:21:45 Size on Disk
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2003-11-25 21:04:14 Re: [HACKERS] Commercial binary support?