Re: [HACKERS] unicode error and problem

From: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: twanger(at)bluetwanger(dot)de
Cc: paolo(at)telmap(dot)com, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] unicode error and problem
Date: 2004-03-25 04:17:53
Message-ID: 20040325.131753.35661791.t-ishii@sra.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

> By the way, Unicode is just a number -> glyph mapping, it doesn't say
> anything about the representation of that number in the byte stream.
> UTF-8 and UTF-16 are such representation specifications.
>
> The encoding name in PostgreSQL should be changed from UNICODE to UTF-8
> because UNICODE really just isn't an encoding.

Actually you can use "UTF-8" instead of "UNICODE" when using
PostgreSQL. However the "primary" name is still UNICODE, and I agree
it's better to change to UTF-8 for the primary name. Maybe for 7.5?
--
Tatsuo Ishii

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-03-25 04:29:43 Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite)
Previous Message Matthew T. O'Connor 2004-03-25 04:13:40 Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite)

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-03-25 04:29:43 Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite)
Previous Message Matthew T. O'Connor 2004-03-25 04:13:40 Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite)