Re: GB18030-2022 Support in PostgreSQL

From: Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Subject: Re: GB18030-2022 Support in PostgreSQL
Date: 2025-09-29 10:36:27
Message-ID: 37CA9E3F-A889-4442-BED6-CC8D2996C229@gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On Sep 29, 2025, at 17:32, John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 4:18 PM Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> I found that both EUC_CN and UHC use the same XML file, so I updated both.
>
> When you say "same file", that implies to me the file we have checked
> in our repo. They have different names and the UHC file is downloaded
> on demand, so it doesn't seem like we need to change UHC at all to
> delete gb-18030-2000.xml. Is that right?
>
> --
> John Naylor
> Amazon Web Services

“same file" was a mistake. windows-949-2000.ucm is a different file from gb-18030-2000(2022).ucm.

In theory, we don’t need to change UHC if our goal is to delete gb-18030-2000.xml. However, as you can see, with switching to use ucm, UHC, EUC_CN and GB18030 now share the same download URL in the Makefile, and their perl scripts use the same logic to process UCM files, so I think it would be good for maintenance.

Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message RECHTÉ Marc 2025-09-29 10:55:54 Doc compilation fails with a recent xmllint
Previous Message BharatDB 2025-09-29 10:31:04 Re: [PATCH] Fix pg_rewind false positives caused by shutdown-only WAL