> >>> I still stand on my proposal, how about extending E'' strings with > >>> unicode escapes (eg. \uXXXX)? The E'' strings are already more > >>> clearly defined than '' and they are our "own", we don't need to > >>> consider random standards, but can consider our sanity. > >>> > >> I suspect there would be lots more support in the user community, where > >> \uXXXX is well understood in a number of contexts (Java and ECMAScript, > >> for example). It's also tolerably sane. > >> > > > > By the way, that's an example of how to do it wrong, there are more > > than 2^16 unicode characters, you want to be able to support the full > > 21-bit range if you're going to do it right. > > > > FWIW, I prefer the perl syntax which simply extends \x: \x{1344}, which > > makes it clear it's hex and doesn't make assumptions as to how many > > characters are used. > > > > I could live with either. Wikipedia says: "The characters outside the > first plane usually have very specialized or rare use." For years we > rejected all characters beyond the first plane, and while that's fixed > now, the volume of complaints wasn't huge.
I you mean "first plane" as BMP (i.e. 16bit range), above is not true for PostgreSQL 7.3 or later at least. -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers