| From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | barry(at)xythos(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | AW: MULTIBYTE and SQL_ASCII (was Re: [JDBC] Re: A bug w ith pgsql 7.1/jdbc and non-ascii (8-bit) chars?) |
| Date: | 2001-05-09 07:51:01 |
| Message-ID: | 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA6879633682BD@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Tom's suggestion does not sound reasonable to me. If PostgreSQL is not
> > built with MULTIBYTE, then it means there would be no such idea
> > "encoding" in PostgreSQL becuase there is no program to handle
> > encodings. Thus it would be meaningless to assign an "encoding" to a
> > database if MULTIBYTE is not enabled.
>
> Why? Without the MULTIBYTE code, the backend cannot perform character
> set translations --- but it's perfectly possible that someone might not
> need translations. A lot of European sites are probably very happy
> as long as the server gives them back the same 8-bit characters they
> stored.
Yes, that is what we do (German language). Encoding is Latin1.
Would it not be reasonable to return the machine LC_CTYPE in the non multibyte case ?
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Karel Zak | 2001-05-09 09:12:35 | Re: NOCREATETABLE patch (was: Re: Please, help!(about Postgres)) |
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2001-05-09 07:42:05 | AW: Re: Outstanding patches |