I do understand the problem, but don't undertstand the decision you guys made. The fact that UPPER/LOWER and some other functions does not work in win32 is surely a problem for some languages, but not a problem for otheres. For example, Japanese (and probably Chinese and Korean) does not have a concept upper/lower. So the fact UPPER/LOWER does not work with UTF-8/win32 is not problem for Japanese (and for some other languages). Just using C locale with UTF-8 is enough in this case.
In summary, I think you guys are going to overkill the multibyte support functionality on UTF-8/win32 because of the fact that some langauges do not work. Same thing can be said to EUC-JP, EUC-CN and EUC-KR and so on as well. I strongly object the policy to try to unconditionaly disable UTF-8 support on win32. -- Tatsuo Ishii From: "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [pgsql-hackers-win32] UNICODE/UTF-8 on win32 Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 14:48:04 +0100 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > UNICODE/UTF-8 does not work on the win32 server. The reason is that > strcoll() and friends don't work with it. To support it on win32, it > needs to be converted to UTF16 and use the wide-character versions of > the fucntion. Which we do not do. > (See > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers-win32/2004-11/msg00036.php > and > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers-win32/2004-12/msg00106.php) > > > I don't *think* we need to disable ito n the client. AFAIK, the client > interfaces don't use any of these functions, and I've seen reports of > people using that long before we had a native win32 server. > > > //Magnus > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Tatsuo Ishii [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: den 1 januari 2005 01:10 > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Cc: Magnus Hagander; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] UNICODE/UTF-8 on win32 > > > > > >Sorry, but I don't subscribe to pgsql-hackers-win32 list. What's the > >problem here? > >-- > >Tatsuo Ishii > > > >> "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > We know it's broken and won't be fixed for 8.0. > >> > >> > If we just #ifndef WIN32 the definitions in > >utils/mb/encnames.c it won't > >> > be possible to select that encoding, right? Will that have > >any other > >> > unwanted effects (such as breaking client encodings)? If > >not, I suggest > >> > this is done. > >> > >> I believe the subscripts in those arrays have to match the encoding > >> enum type, so you can't just ifdef out individual entries. > >> > >> > (Or perhaps something can be done in pg_valid_server_encoding?) > >> > >> Making the valid_server_encoding function reject it might work. > >> Tatsuo-san would know for sure. > >> > >> Should we also reject it as a client encoding, or does that work OK? > >> > >> regards, tom lane > >> > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
