| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, - - <crossroads0000(at)googlemail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Unicode support |
| Date: | 2009-04-14 18:32:57 |
| Message-ID: | FD8EC967-4472-4AF4-9A53-DE864D47D1C7@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Apr 14, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> I think there's a good case for some functions implementing the
>> various
>> Unicode normalization functions, though.
>
> I have no objection to that so long as the code footprint is in line
> with the utility gain (i.e. not all that much). If we have to bring
> in
> ICU or something similar to make it happen, the cost/benefit ratio
> looks
> pretty bad.
I've no idea what it would require, but the mapping table must be
pretty substantial. Still, I'd love to have this functionality in the
database.
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-04-14 18:34:51 | Re: Unicode string literals versus the world |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2009-04-14 18:31:47 | Re: Unicode string literals versus the world |