Re: Unicode support

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "- -" <crossroads0000(at)googlemail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Unicode support
Date: 2009-04-14 12:32:44
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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