On 4/17/09, Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > > ISTM that one of the uses of this is to say "store the character > > that corresponds to this Unicode code point in whatever the database > > encoding is" > > I would think you're right. As long as the given character is in the > user's character set, we should allow it. Presumably we've already > confirmed that they have an encoding scheme which allows them to store > everything in their character set.
It is probably good idea, but currently I just followed what the U& strings do. I can change my patch to do it, but it is probably more urgent in U& case to decide whether they should work in other encodings too. -- marko -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
