On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 04:11, Itagaki Takahiro > <itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >> >> Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >> >>> I can certainly review the win32 encoding patch, but I was rather >>> hoping for some comments from others on if we're interested in a win32 >>> only solution, or if we want something more generic. Should we just go >>> with the win32-only one for now? >> >> Yes, because Windows is only platform that supports UTF-16 encoding natively. >> I believe my patch is the best solution for Windows even if we have another >> approach for other platforms. > > Actually, I think a better argument is that since Windows will *never* > accept UTF8 logging, and that's what most databases will be in, much > of this patch will be required anyway. So I should probably review and > get this part in while we think about other solutions *as well* for > other platforms.
Given the above, it seems that perhaps we could go ahead and apply this? ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
