Re: UTF8 or Unicode

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: UTF8 or Unicode
Date: 2005-02-25 16:32:21
Message-ID: 200502251732.22414.peter_e@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Am Freitag, 25. Februar 2005 16:26 schrieb Bruce Momjian:
> OK, but what about latin1?

The following character set names are specified in the SQL standard and
therefore somewhat non-negotiable:

SQL_CHARACTER
GRAPHIC_IRV
LATIN1
ISO8BIT
UTF16
UTF8
UCS2
SQL_TEXT
SQL_IDENTIFIER

So we have to use LATIN1, even though it creates an inconsistency. We
discussed this a while ago during the last great renaming, I think.

Btw., I think ISO8BIT is the correct name for what we call SQL_ASCII, but I
haven't analyzed that in detail, yet.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2005-02-25 16:32:38 Re: [HACKERS] Development Plans
Previous Message Matthew T. O'Connor 2005-02-25 16:24:50 Re: [HACKERS] Development Plans

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2005-02-25 18:36:57 Re: UTF8 or Unicode
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2005-02-25 15:58:33 Re: bcc32.mak for libpq broken? (distro 8.0.0) (fwd)