Mark Dilger <pgsql(at)markdilger(dot)com> writes:
> Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>> Just about every multibyte encoding other than Unicode has the problem
>> of not distinguishing between the code point and the encoding of it.
> Thanks for the feedback. Would you say that the way I implemented things in the
> example code would be correct for multibyte non Unicode encodings?
I think it's probably defensible for non-Unicode encodings. To do
otherwise would require (a) figuring out what the equivalent concept to
"code point" is for each encoding, and (b) having a separate code path
for each encoding to perform the mapping. It's not clear that there
even is an answer to (a), and (b) seems like more work than chr() is
worth. But we know what the right way is for Unicode, so we should
special case that one.
Note the points made that in all cases ascii() and chr() should be
inverses, and that you shouldn't just fall back to the old behavior
in SQL_ASCII encoding. (My vote for SQL_ASCII would be to reject
values > 255.)
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-04-03 17:10:59|
|Subject: Re: Implicit casts to text |
|Previous:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2007-04-03 17:04:24|
|Subject: Re: Implicit casts to text|