On 12/2/20 1:30 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
st 2. 12. 2020 v 11:37 odesílatel Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com
st 2. 12. 2020 v 9:23 odesílatel Peter Eisentraut
Heh. The fact that there is a table of two dozen possible
representations kind of proves my point that we should be
deliberate in
picking one.
I do see Oracle unistr() on that list, which appears to be very
similar
to what you are trying to do here. Maybe look into aligning
with that.
unistr is a primitive form of proposed function. But it can be used
as a base. The format is compatible with our "4.1.2.3. String
Constants with Unicode Escapes".
What do you think about the following proposal?
1. unistr(text) .. compatible with Postgres unicode escapes - it is
enhanced against Oracle, because Oracle's unistr doesn't support 6
digits unicodes.
2. there can be optional parameter "prefix" with default "\". But
with "\u" it can be compatible with Java or Python.
What do you think about it?
I thought about it a little bit more, and the prefix specification has
not too much sense (more if we implement this functionality as function
"unistr"). I removed the optional argument and renamed the function to
"unistr". The functionality is the same. Now it supports Oracle
convention, Java and Python (for Python UXXXXXXXX) and \+XXXXXX. These
formats was already supported.The compatibility witth Oracle is nice.
Peter, it looks like Pavel has aligned this function with unistr() as
you suggested. Thoughts?
Regards,
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
