This should do it. Regards,
John Hansen -----Original Message----- From: Dennis Bjorklund [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 5:02 PM To: Tom Lane Cc: John Hansen; Hackers; Patches Subject: Re: [HACKERS] UNICODE characters above 0x10000 On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > question at hand is whether we can support 32-bit characters or not > --- and if not, what's the next bug to fix? True, and that's hard to just give an answer to. One could do some simple testing, make sure regexps work and then treat anything else that might not work, as bugs to be fixed later on when found. The alternative is to inspect all code paths that involve strings, not fun at all :-) My previous mail talked about utf-8 translation. Not all characters possible to form using utf-8 are assigned by the unicode org. However, the part that interprets the unicode strings are in the os so different os'es can give different results. So I think pg should just accept even 6 byte utf-8 sequences even if some characters are not currently assigned. -- /Dennis Björklund
wchar.c.patch
Description: wchar.c.patch
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
