Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ITAGAKI Takahiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PostgreSQL suppots SJIS, BIG5, GBK, UHC and GB18030 as client encodings,
but we cannot use them as server encodings. Are there any reason for it?
Very much so --- they aren't safe ASCII-supersets, and thus for example
the
William ZHANG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sorry. I still cannot understand why backend encodings must have this
property. AFAIK, the parser treats characters as ASCII. So any multi-byte
characters will be treated as two or more ASCII characters. But if
the multi-byte encoding doesnot use any
Tatsuo Ishii [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think the best way to proceed is probably to fix this in HEAD but
not back-patch it. During a dump and reload the encoding can be
corrected to something safe.
Ok. Shall I go ahead and remove JOHAB in HEAD?
+1 for me.
Tatsuo Ishii [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BTW, do we have to modify pg_dump or pg_restore so that it can
automatically adjust JOHAB to UTF8 (it's the only safe encoding
compatible with JOHAB)? I'm not sure it's worth the trouble. Maybe
documenting in the release note is enough?
Do we actually
Tatsuo Ishii [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sigh. From the first day when JOHAB was supported (back to 7.3 days),
it should had not been in the server encodings. JOHAB's second byte
definitely contain 0x41 and above. *johab*.map just reflect the
fact. I think we should remove JOHAB from the
Tatsuo Ishii [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think the best way to proceed is probably to fix this in HEAD but
not back-patch it. During a dump and reload the encoding can be
corrected to something safe.
Ok. Shall I go ahead and remove JOHAB in HEAD?
+1 for me.
regards,
pointers on how to proceed?)
Thank you,
Zaki
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 11:20 AM
To: ITAGAKI Takahiro
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Server-side support of all encodings
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 10:44:00AM +0900, Dezso Zoltan wrote:
My question is, however: what would be the best practice if it was
imperative to use SJIS encoding for texts and no built-in conversions
are useful? To elaborate, I need to support japanese emoji characters,
which are special
Hello Everyone,
I very much understand why SJIS is not a server encoding. It contains
ASCII second bytes (including \ and ' both of which can be really
nasty inside a normal sql) and further, half-width katakana is
represented as one byte-characters, incidentally two of which coincide
with
Hello Everyone,
I very much understand why SJIS is not a server encoding. It contains
ASCII second bytes (including \ and ' both of which can be really
nasty inside a normal sql) and further, half-width katakana is
represented as one byte-characters, incidentally two of which coincide
with
ITAGAKI Takahiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Backend encodings must have the property
that all bytes of a multibyte character are = 128.
But then, PG_JOHAB have already infringed it. Please see johab_to_utf8.map.
Trailing bytes of JOHAB can be less than
ITAGAKI Takahiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Backend encodings must have the property
that all bytes of a multibyte character are = 128.
But then, PG_JOHAB have already infringed it. Please see johab_to_utf8.map.
Trailing bytes of JOHAB can be less than
Tatsuo Ishii [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sigh. From the first day when JOHAB was supported (back to 7.3 days),
it should had not been in the server encodings. JOHAB's second byte
definitely contain 0x41 and above. *johab*.map just reflect the
fact. I think we should remove JOHAB from the server
ITAGAKI Takahiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PostgreSQL suppots SJIS, BIG5, GBK, UHC and GB18030 as client encodings,
but we cannot use them as server encodings. Are there any reason for it?
Very much so --- they aren't safe ASCII-supersets, and thus for example
the parser will fail on them.
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PostgreSQL suppots SJIS, BIG5, GBK, UHC and GB18030 as client encodings,
but we cannot use them as server encodings. Are there any reason for it?
Very much so --- they aren't safe ASCII-supersets, and thus for example
the parser will fail on them.
ITAGAKI Takahiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Backend encodings must have the property
that all bytes of a multibyte character are = 128.
But then, PG_JOHAB have already infringed it. Please see johab_to_utf8.map.
Trailing bytes of JOHAB can be less than 128.
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Server-side support of all encodings
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PostgreSQL suppots SJIS, BIG5, GBK, UHC and GB18030 as client
encodings,
but we cannot use them as server encodings. Are there any reason for
it?
Very much so --- they aren't safe ASCII-supersets
17 matches
Mail list logo
