| From: | Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Unicode upper() bug still present |
| Date: | 2003-10-21 07:50:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20031021075030.GA7478@zf.jcu.cz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 10:58:00PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> (Note that I say Unicode a lot here because those people do a lot of
> research and standardization in this area, which is available for free,
> but this does not constrain the result to work only with the Unicode
> character set.)
Why cannot do PostgreSQL as 100% pure Unicode system? We can do
conversion from/to others encodings as client/server communication
extension, but internaly in BE we can use only pure Unicode data. I
think a lot of things will more simple...
Karel
--
Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>
http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2003-10-21 08:44:54 | Re: Unicode upper() bug still present |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-10-21 05:51:28 | Re: [HACKERS] obj_description problems? |