| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Marko Kreen" <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Latest on CITEXT 2.0 |
| Date: | 2008-07-01 15:43:07 |
| Message-ID: | 11143.1214926987@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Marko Kreen" <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> There's another thing I'm probably missing: does current code handle
> multi-wchar codepoints? Or is it guaranteed they don't happen?
AFAIK we disallow multi-wchar situations (by rejecting the UTF8
combining codes).
> (Wasn't wchar_t usually 16bit value?)
Hmm. It's unsigned int on my ancient HPUX box. I think we could have a
problem on any machines whose mbstowcs doesn't support 4-byte UTF8
codes, though ... in particular, what about Windows?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Kreen | 2008-07-01 16:07:32 | Re: Latest on CITEXT 2.0 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-07-01 15:36:41 | Re: Latest on CITEXT 2.0 |