Re: UNICODE/UTF-8 on win32

I do understand the problem, but don't undertstand the decision you
guys made. The fact that UPPER/LOWER and some other functions does not
work in win32 is surely a problem for some languages, but not a
problem for otheres. For example, Japanese (and probably Chinese and
Korean) does not have a concept upper/lower. So the fact UPPER/LOWER
does not work with UTF-8/win32 is not problem for Japanese (and for
some other languages). Just using C locale with UTF-8 is enough in
this case.

In summary, I think you guys are going to overkill the multibyte
support functionality on UTF-8/win32 because of the fact that some
langauges do not work.

Same thing can be said to EUC-JP, EUC-CN and EUC-KR and so on as well.

I strongly object the policy to try to unconditionaly disable UTF-8
support on win32.
--
Tatsuo Ishii

From: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
Subject: RE: [pgsql-hackers-win32] UNICODE/UTF-8 on win32
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 14:48:04 +0100
Message-ID: <6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE4764A4(at)algol(dot)sollentuna(dot)se>

> UNICODE/UTF-8 does not work on the win32 server. The reason is that
> strcoll() and friends don't work with it. To support it on win32, it
> needs to be converted to UTF16 and use the wide-character versions of
> the fucntion. Which we do not do.
> (See
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers-win32/2004-11/msg00036.php
> and
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers-win32/2004-12/msg00106.php)
>
>
> I don't *think* we need to disable ito n the client. AFAIK, the client
> interfaces don't use any of these functions, and I've seen reports of
> people using that long before we had a native win32 server.
>
>
> //Magnus
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Tatsuo Ishii [mailto:t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp]
> >Sent: den 1 januari 2005 01:10
> >To: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
> >Cc: Magnus Hagander; pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org
> >Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] UNICODE/UTF-8 on win32
> >
> >
> >Sorry, but I don't subscribe to pgsql-hackers-win32 list. What's the
> >problem here?
> >--
> >Tatsuo Ishii
> >
> >> "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> writes:
> >> > We know it's broken and won't be fixed for 8.0.
> >>
> >> > If we just #ifndef WIN32 the definitions in
> >utils/mb/encnames.c it won't
> >> > be possible to select that encoding, right? Will that have
> >any other
> >> > unwanted effects (such as breaking client encodings)? If
> >not, I suggest
> >> > this is done.
> >>
> >> I believe the subscripts in those arrays have to match the encoding
> >> enum type, so you can't just ifdef out individual entries.
> >>
> >> > (Or perhaps something can be done in pg_valid_server_encoding?)
> >>
> >> Making the valid_server_encoding function reject it might work.
> >> Tatsuo-san would know for sure.
> >>
> >> Should we also reject it as a client encoding, or does that work OK?
> >>
> >> regards, tom lane
> >>
> >
>