Re: Patch: add conversion from pg_wchar to multibyte

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Patch: add conversion from pg_wchar to multibyte
Date: 2012-07-05 23:15:38
Message-ID: 3895.1341530138@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>> So far as I can see, the only LCPRVn marker code that is actually in
>> use right now is 0x9d --- there are no instances of 9a, 9b, or 9c
>> that I can find.
>>
>> I also read in the xemacs internals doc, at
>> http://www.xemacs.org/Documentation/21.5/html/internals_26.html#SEC145
>> that XEmacs thinks the marker code for private single-byte charsets
>> is 0x9e (only) and that for private multi-byte charsets is 0x9f (only);
>> moreover they think 0x9a-0x9d are potential future official multibyte
>> charset codes. I don't know how we got to the current state of using
>> 0x9a-0x9d as private charset markers, but it seems pretty inconsistent
>> with XEmacs.

> At the time when mule internal code was introduced to PostgreSQL,
> xemacs did not have multi encoding capabilty and mule (a patch to
> emacs) was the only implementation allowed to use multi encoding. So I
> used the specification of mule documented in the URL I wrote.

I see. Given that upstream has decided that a simpler definition is
more appropriate, is there any reason not to follow their lead, to the
extent that we can do so without breaking existing on-disk data?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2012-07-06 00:13:44 Re: obsolete copyright notice
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-07-05 23:11:59 Re: Patch: add conversion from pg_wchar to multibyte