Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> Are you proposing that we change all the "char *" to "unsigned char *"?
> No, I suggest we change all "char *" to "unsigned char *" only where
> it points a string which could hold non ASCII character strings.
Which is pretty nearly all of them...
> To support multiple charsets/collataions, I think we need to change
> the way to represent character strings from the unstructured "char *"
> to more intelligent structure (I know it's hard to implement that
> without significant performance loss, but I know we should do it in
> the future).
Yeah, it's still not clear where we are going to end up, but in the
meantime we've got a lot of warnings cluttering the code and making
it hard to spot real problems.
> So "unsigned char*" is not enough for the goal anyway, I'm not against
> your patches.
OK. No one else objected, so I'll go ahead and apply before the code
drifts to the point of breaking the patch.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2005-09-24 19:14:03|
|Subject: Re: 2 forks for md5?|
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2005-09-24 16:38:52|
|Subject: Re: 64-bit API for large objects|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Martijn van Oosterhout||Date: 2005-09-24 21:45:08|
|Subject: \x output blowing up|
|Previous:||From: Satoshi Nagayasu||Date: 2005-09-24 06:07:12|
|Subject: monitoring sort activities|