Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On the flip side, the risk of it flat-out blowing up seems pretty
> small. For someone to invent their own version of wchar_t that uses
> something other than Unicode code points would be pretty much pure
> masochism, wouldn't it?
Well, no, that's not clear. The C standard has pretty carefully avoided
constraining the wchar_t representation, so implementors are free to do
whatever is most convenient from the standpoint of their library routines.
I could easily see somebody deciding to do something that wasn't quite
Unicode because it let him re-use lookup tables designed for some other
encoding, or some such.
Now it's also perfectly possible, maybe even likely, that nobody's done
that on any platform we care about. But I don't believe we know that
with any degree of certainty. We definitely have not made any effort to
establish whether it's true --- for example, we have no regression tests
that address the point. (I think that collate.linux.utf8 touches on it,
but we're a long way from being able to run that on non-glibc
platforms...)
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
