On 07.07.2012 00:12, Jan Urbański wrote:
On 06/07/12 22:47, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On fre, 2012-07-06 at 18:53 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
What shall we do about those? Ignore them? Document that if you're sing
one of these encodings then PL/Python with Python 2 will be crippled
and
with Python 3 just won't work?
We could convert to UTF-8, and use the PostgreSQL functions to convert
from UTF-8 to the server encoding. Double conversion might be slow, but
I think it would be better than failing.
Actually, we already do the other direction that way
(PLyUnicode_FromStringAndSize) , so maybe it would be more consistent to
always use this.
I would hesitate to use this as a kind of fallback, because then we
would sometimes be using PostgreSQL's recoding tables and sometimes
Python's recoding tables, which could became confusing.
So you're in favour of doing unicode -> bytes by encoding with UTF-8 and
then using the server's encoding functions?
Sounds reasonable to me. The extra conversion between UTF-8 and UCS-2
should be quite fast, and it would be good to be consistent in the way
we do conversions in both directions.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
