Thanks. UTF8 is good enough although it needs conversion between client GBK and server side UTF8. I didn't notice that there are high risk to introduce GBK and similar other kind of charsets into server side.
"=?ISO-8859-1?B?WGlvbmcgSGU=?=" <[email protected]> writes: > I just noticed that PG not support the following encoding: > /* followings are for client encoding only */ > PG_SJIS, /* Shift JIS > (Winindows-932) */ > PG_BIG5, /* Big5 (Windows-950) */ > PG_GBK, /* GBK (Windows-936) */ > PG_UHC, /* UHC (Windows-949) */ > PG_GB18030, /* GB18030 */ > PG_JOHAB, /* EUC for Korean JOHAB > */ > PG_SHIFT_JIS_2004, /* Shift-JIS-2004 */ > _PG_LAST_ENCODING_ /* mark only */ > But PG_GBK and PG_GB18030 are very popular in Chinese charset. > Could anybody give some hints about how to extend it in PG source code? The reason those aren't supported is that they aren't strict ASCII supersets, ie there are multibyte characters in which not all the bytes have the high bit set. This breaks string-processing assumptions all over the place. We are not going to accept any patch that tries to change that, because it would be too complicated, fragile, and slow. Is there a reason why it's not good enough to use these just on the client side, with the server internally using utf8? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
