Re: [HACKERS] Implications of multi-byte support in a distribution

From: Milan Zamazal <pdm(at)debian(dot)cz>
To: hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Implications of multi-byte support in a distribution
Date: 1999-09-01 11:17:45
Message-ID: 87emgi519i.fsf@pdm.pvt.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>>>>> "TL" == Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:

>> That shouldn't be too difficult, if we have an encoding
>> infomation with each text column or literal. Maybe now is the
>> time to introuce NCHAR?

TL> I've been waiting for a go-ahead from folks who would use
TL> it. imho the way to do it is to use Postgres' type system to
TL> implement it, rather than, for example, encoding "type"
TL> information into each string. We can also define a "default
TL> encoding" for each database as a new column in pg_database...

What about sorting? Would it be possible to solve it in similar way?
If I'm not mistaken, there is currently no good way to use two different
kinds of sorting for one postmaster instance?

Milan Zamazal

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hub.Org News Admin 1999-09-01 11:29:55
Previous Message Milan Zamazal 1999-09-01 11:12:49 Re: [HACKERS] Implications of multi-byte support in a distribution