Re: ISO-8859-1 encoding not enforced?

From: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ISO-8859-1 encoding not enforced?
Date: 2005-04-12 08:50:43
Message-ID: 3237.24.211.165.134.1113295843.squirrel@www.dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane said:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> Is PostgreSQL supposed to enforce a LATIN1/ISO-8859-1 encoding if
>> that's the database encoding?
>
> AFAIK, there are no illegal characters in 8859-1, except \0 which we do
> reject.
>

Perhaps Chris is confusing ISO/IEC 8859-1 with ISO-8859-1 a.k.a. Latin-1.

According to the wikipedia,

"The IANA has approved ISO-8859-1 (note the extra hyphen), a superset of
ISO/IEC 8859-1, for use on the Internet. This character map, or character
set or code page, supplements the assignments made by ISO/IEC 8859-1,
mapping control characters to code values 00-1F, 7F, and 80-9F. It thus
provides for 256 characters via every possible 8-bit value.
[snip]
The name Latin-1 is an informal alias [for ISO-8859-1] unrecognized by ISO
or the IANA, but is perhaps meaningful in some computer software."

But let's not start accepting \0 ;-)

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2005-04-12 08:51:49 Test coverage for external sorting
Previous Message Michael Paesold 2005-04-12 06:39:09 Re: System vs non-system casts