Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Are you proposing that we change all the "char *" to "unsigned char *"?
> No, I suggest we change all "char *" to "unsigned char *" only where > it points a string which could hold non ASCII character strings. Which is pretty nearly all of them... > To support multiple charsets/collataions, I think we need to change > the way to represent character strings from the unstructured "char *" > to more intelligent structure (I know it's hard to implement that > without significant performance loss, but I know we should do it in > the future). Yeah, it's still not clear where we are going to end up, but in the meantime we've got a lot of warnings cluttering the code and making it hard to spot real problems. > So "unsigned char*" is not enough for the goal anyway, I'm not against > your patches. OK. No one else objected, so I'll go ahead and apply before the code drifts to the point of breaking the patch. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster