Re: Unicode string literals versus the world

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:08:37PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk> writes:
> > I've failed to keep up with the discussion so I'm not sure where this
> > conversation has got to! Is the consensus for 8.4 to enable SQL2003
> > style U&lit escaped literals if and only if standard_conforming_strings
> > is set?
>
> That was Peter's proposal, and no one's shot a hole in it yet ...

Just noticed that the spec only supports four hex digits; this would
imply that support for anything outside the BMP would have to be done
by encoding the character as a surrogate pair. If the code doesn't
do this already (the original patch didn't seem to) these should be
normalised back to a single character in a similar manner to Marko's
recent patch[1].

> I think the discussion about whether/how to add a Unicode extension to
> E''-style literals is 8.5 material. We are in beta so now is not
> the time to add new features, especially ones that weren't even on the
> TODO list before.

OK, sounds reasonable.

--
Sam http://samason.me.uk/

[1] http://archives.postgresql.org//pgsql-hackers/2009-04/msg00904.php