On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 06:25 am, Markus Bertheau wrote:
> Ð ÐÑÐ, 05.11.2003, Ð 16:25, Tom Lane ÐÐÑÐÑ:
> > > +#define HEXVALUE(c) (((c)>='a') ? ((c)-87) : (((c)>='A') ? ((c)-55) :
> > > ((c)-'0')))
> >
> > This seems excessively dependent on the assumption that the character
> > set is ASCII. Why have you hard-coded numeric equivalents into this
> > macro?
>
> What not ASCII compatible character sets are out there in use still
> today?
Ah, yes - didn't even think about the character sets. If thats the case then
octal needs attention as well because it makes a similar assumption. Peter
Eisentraut commented that this should be in the string literal parser.
Should this be the case? and if so should i migrate both octal and hex to
this parser?
Rgds,
Jason
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
