Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm, is this what we had agreed?  I'm not sure I like it; if I'm using
> chr() to produce characters, then the application is going to have to
> worry about server_encoding in order to find the correct parameter to
> pass to chr().

That's always been the case.

> What I thought was the idea is that chr() always gets an Unicode code
> point, and it converts the character to the server_encoding.

I think that would be too big a break from past practice --- the
operative word being "break", because in LATINn character sets chr/ascii
work just fine.

I wouldn't object to introducing some sort of unicode_chr/unicode_ascii
function pair that translates to/from Unicode code points regardless of
the DB encoding.  But that smells way more like a new feature than
plugging a hole, so I suggest it should wait for 8.4.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to