> From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] > > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > Also, as far as I understand what we want to control here is the > > encoding that the strings are in (the mapping of bytes to characters), > > not the collation (the way a set of strings are ordered). So it > > doesn't make sense to set the NATIONAL CHARACTER option using the > > COLLATE keyword. > > My thought is that we should simply ignore the NATIONAL CHARACTER syntax, > which is not the first nor the last brain-damaged feature design in the SQL > standard. It's basically useless for what we want because there's noplace to > specify which encoding you mean. Instead, let's consider that COLLATE can > define not only the collation but also the encoding of a string datum.
Yes, don't have a problem with this. If I understand you correctly, this will be simpler syntax wise, but still get nchar/nvarchar data types into a table, in different encoding from the rest of the table. > > There's still the problem of how do you get a string of a nondefault encoding > into the database in the first place. Yes, that is the bulk of the work. Will need change in a whole lot of places. Is a step-by-step approach worth exploring ? Something similar to: Step 1: Support nchar/nvarchar data types. Restrict them only to UTF-8 databases to begin with. Step 2: Support multiple encodings in a database. Remove the restriction imposed in step1. Rgds, Arul Shaji -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
