On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. I didn't realize that we store pg_wchar on disk somewhere. I thought it is only in-memory representation. Where do we store pg_wchar on disk? ------ With best regards, Alexander Korotkov.
