On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 5:11 AM, Alexander Korotkov <aekorot...@gmail.com> wrote: >> MULE also looks problematic. The code that you've written isn't >> symmetric with the opposite conversion, unlike what you did in all >> other cases, and I don't understand why. I'm also somewhat baffled by >> the reverse conversion: it treats a multi-byte sequence beginning with >> a byte for which IS_LCPRV1(x) returns true as invalid if there are >> less than 3 bytes available, but it only reads two; similarly, for >> IS_LCPRV2(x), it demands 4 bytes but converts only 3. > > Should we save existing pg_wchar representation for MULE encoding? Probably, > we can modify it like in 0.1 version of patch in order to make it more > transparent.
Changing the encoding would break pg_upgrade, so -1 from me on that. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
