Re: [HACKERS] Win32 unicode vs ICU

2005-08-23 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > (Just looking at it again, the code in convert_string_to_scalar is > pretty bogus for multibyte encodings in any case. Possibly we need to > rethink the whole approach.) After studying this some more, I think the code is really so bogus for any non-ASCII situation that it's probably no

Re: [HACKERS] Win32 unicode vs ICU

2005-08-23 Thread Tom Lane
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> There is a strxfrm() call in >> src/backend/utils/adt/selfuncs.c, which probably needs to be >> looked at too. > Ok. Will look into that. Do you have a hint as to how to test that? Any problems would manifest as a bogus interpolation between hist

Re: [HACKERS] Win32 unicode vs ICU

2005-08-23 Thread Magnus Hagander
.. back home again after a couple of days .. > >> I am unsure of how to proceed. As I see it there are three paths: > >> 1) Use native win32 functionality only on win32 > >> 2) Use ICU functionality only on win32 > >> 3) Allow both ICU and native functionality, compile time > >>switch --wit

Re: [HACKERS] Win32 unicode vs ICU

2005-08-22 Thread Palle Girgensohn
--On måndag, augusti 22, 2005 10.12.11 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Palle Girgensohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: wrote: How is FreeBSD's Unicode support broken? I was not aware of that. FreeBSD has no unicode collation support. Hence the need for ICU. Well, this obvious

Re: [HACKERS] Win32 unicode vs ICU

2005-08-22 Thread Tom Lane
Palle Girgensohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > wrote: >> How is FreeBSD's Unicode support broken? I was not aware of that. > FreeBSD has no unicode collation support. Hence the need for ICU. Well, this obviously doesn't bother anyone who uses FreeBSD, so it need not bother us either. I do not

Re: [HACKERS] Win32 unicode vs ICU

2005-08-22 Thread Palle Girgensohn
--On måndag, augusti 22, 2005 09.19.58 -0400 Bruce Momjian wrote: Palle Girgensohn wrote: > I feel it makes sense to apply the smaller patch in any case, so that > there's a Win32 solution not requiring ICU (ie, I can't see an argument > for doing (2) rather than (3)). > > Comments? I don't

Re: [HACKERS] Win32 unicode vs ICU

2005-08-22 Thread Bruce Momjian
Palle Girgensohn wrote: > > I feel it makes sense to apply the smaller patch in any case, so that > > there's a Win32 solution not requiring ICU (ie, I can't see an argument > > for doing (2) rather than (3)). > > > > Comments? > > I don't mind either way, but while Win32 will work with Magnus' pa

Re: [HACKERS] Win32 unicode vs ICU

2005-08-22 Thread Palle Girgensohn
--On lördag, augusti 20, 2005 12.17.47 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [ moving to -hackers for wider discussion ] "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-08/msg00039.php I've been working with Palles ICU patch to make it wor

Re: [HACKERS] Win32 unicode vs ICU

2005-08-20 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 12:17:47PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I think that ICU would be interesting as the base for a much larger > patch that gets us away from depending on libc's locale support at all > (in particular, getting rid of the "one locale per database" problem). > But it seems like a he

Re: [HACKERS] Win32 unicode vs ICU

2005-08-20 Thread Tom Lane
[ moving to -hackers for wider discussion ] "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-08/msg00039.php >> I've been working with Palles ICU patch to make it work on >> win32, and I believe I have it done. While doing it I noticed >> that ICU