| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Unicode string literals versus the world |
| Date: | 2009-04-14 18:30:40 |
| Message-ID: | 200904142130.41730.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tuesday 14 April 2009 20:35:21 Robert Haas wrote:
> Maybe I've just got my head deeply in the sand, but I don't understand
> what the alternative to E'' supposedly is. How am I supposed to write
> the equivalent of E'\t\n\f' without using E''?
Well, the first alternative is to type those characters in literally. The
second alternative is the U&'' syntax. ;-) The third alternative is to design
applications that don't need this, because the processing behavior of those
characters is quite unportable. But of course in some cases using the E''
syntax is the most convenient.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2009-04-14 18:31:47 | Re: Unicode string literals versus the world |
| Previous Message | Andreas Pflug | 2009-04-14 18:30:27 | Warm Standby restore_command documentation (was: New trigger option of pg_standby) |