Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: [HACKERS] UNICODE/UTF-8 on win32
- From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
- To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
- Cc: Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: [HACKERS] UNICODE/UTF-8 on win32
- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:07:07 +0100
- Message-id: <200502250807(dot)08569(dot)peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Oh, sorry. So there is no ordering in Unicode? That statement is meaningless. Unicode is a character set, not a collation order. > No wonder some > languages can't use Unicode effectively. That has nothing to do with it. > o Disallow encodings like UTF8 which PostgreSQL supports > but the operating system does not (already disallowed by > pginstaller) I think the warning that initdb shouts out is already enough for this. I don't think we want to disallow this for people who know what they are doing. > I assume C just compares the bytes, meaning equality comparisons are > fine, but greater/less than is consistent but meaningless. That statement is independent of whether you use Unicode or something else. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
- References:
- Re: [HACKERS] UNICODE/UTF-8 on win32
- From: Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] UNICODE/UTF-8 on win32
- Prev by Date: Re: Repleacement for src/port/snprintf.c
- Next by Date: Re: [HACKERS] UNICODE/UTF-8 on win32
- Previous by thread: Re: [HACKERS] UNICODE/UTF-8 on win32
- Next by thread: Re: [HACKERS] UNICODE/UTF-8 on win32
- Indexes: