| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: OCTET_LENGTH is wrong |
| Date: | 2001-11-19 15:45:18 |
| Message-ID: | 15306.1006184718@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> I don't have a set theory text available, but I think this should give a
> fair indication that the number of bits in the value of S is the sum of
> the bits in each individual character (which is in turn vaguely defined
> elsewhere in SQL99) -- at least in Euclidean memory architectures.
But "how many bits in a character?" is exactly the question at this
point. To be fair, I don't think our notion of on-the-fly encoding
translation is envisioned anywhere in the SQL spec, so perhaps we
shouldn't expect it to tell us which encoding to count the bits in.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-19 15:59:57 | Re: postgresql.conf |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-11-19 14:40:01 | Re: format_type infelicity |