> > Date says that SQL_TEXT is required to have two things:
> > 1) all characters used in the SQL language itself (which is what I
> > recalled)
> > 2) Every other character from every character set in the
> > installation.
> Doesn't it say "charcter repertory", rather than character set? I
> think it would be possible to let our SQL_TEXT support every character
> repertories in the world, if we use Unicode or Mule internal code for
I think that "character set" and "character repertoire" are synonymous
(at least I am interpreting them that way). SQL99 makes a slight
distinction, in that "repertoire" is a "set" in a specific context of
I'm starting to look at the SQL99 doc. I am going to try to read the doc
as if SQL_TEXT is a placeholder for "any allowed character set", not
"all character sets simultaneously" and see if that works.
Since there are a wide range of encodings to choose from, and since most
character sets can not be translated to another random character set,
having SQL_TEXT usefully require all sets present simultaneously seems a
bit of a stretch.
I'm also not going to try to understand the complete doc before having a
trial solution; we can extend/modify/redefine/throw away the trial
solution as we understand the spec better.
While I'm thinking about it: afaict, if we have the ability to load
multiple character sets simultaneously, we will want to have *one* of
those mapped in as the "default character set" for an installation or
database. So we might want to statically link that one in, while the
others get loaded dynamically.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Adriaan Joubert||Date: 2000-06-25 07:17:52|
|Subject: Re: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for port testing on fmgr changes --
|Previous:||From: Thomas Lockhart||Date: 2000-06-25 04:36:13|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for port testing on fmgr changes -- Results!|