On Monday 13 April 2009 22:39:58 Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Umm, but isn't that because your encoding is using one code point?
>
> See the OP's explanation w.r.t. canonical equivalence.
>
> This isn't about the number of bytes, but about whether or not we should
> count characters encoded as two or more combined code points as a single
> char or not.

Here is a test case that shows the problem (if your terminal can display 
combining characters (xterm appears to work)):

SELECT U&'\00E9', char_length(U&'\00E9');
 ?column? | char_length
----------+-------------
 é        |           1
(1 row)

SELECT U&'\0065\0301', char_length(U&'\0065\0301');
 ?column? | char_length 
----------+-------------
 é        |           2
(1 row)

In response to

• Re: Unicode support at 2009-04-13 19:39:58 from Andrew Dunstan

Responses

• Re: Unicode support at 2009-04-14 15:49:45 from Greg Stark

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Peter Eisentraut	Date: 2009-04-14 12:36:35
	Subject: Re: Unicode support
Previous:	From: Andrew Dunstan	Date: 2009-04-14 12:10:54
	Subject: Re: Unicode string literals versus the world