From: | Agent M <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: UTF8 or Unicode |
Date: | 2005-02-15 03:13:32 |
Message-ID: | 9285CC4B-7EFF-11D9-96D4-0030657192DA@themactionfaction.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Feb 14, 2005, at 9:27 PM, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
>
>> I know UTF8 is a type of unicode but do we need to rename anything
>> from Unicode to UTF8?
>
> I don't know. I'll go through the documentation to see if I can find
> anything that needs changing.
>
It's not the documentation that is wrong. Specifying the database
"encoding" as "Unicode" is simply a bug (see initdb). What if
postgresql supports UTF-16 in the future? What would you call it?
Also, the backend protocol also uses "UNICODE" when specifying the
encoding. All the other encoding names are specified correctly AFAICS.
I brought this up before:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-10/msg00811.php
We could make UTF8 the canonical form in the aliasing mechanism, but
beta 4 is a bit late to come up with this kind of idea.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-02-15 03:49:40 | Re: Refactoring |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-02-15 03:08:11 | Re: Continue transactions after errors in psql |