Marko Kreen wrote:
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.
Indeed. What does the standard say about the behaviour of U&'' ?
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
