Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> I do not object the changing UNICODE->UTF-8, but all these discussions
> sound a little bit funny to me.
>
> If you want to blame UNICODE, you should blame LATIN1 etc. as
> well. LATIN1(ISO-8859-1) is actually a character set name, not an
> encoding name. ISO-8859-1 can be encoded in 8-bit single byte
> stream. But it can be encoded in 7-bit too. So when we refer to
> LATIN1(ISO-8859-1), it's not clear if it's encoded in 7/8-bit.
Wow, Tatsuo has a point here. Looking at encnames.c, I see:
"UNICODE", PG_UTF8
but also:
"WIN", PG_WIN1251
"LATIN1", PG_LATIN1
and I see conversions for those:
"iso88591", PG_LATIN1
"win", PG_WIN1251
so I see what he is saying. We are not consistent in favoring the
official names vs. the common names.
I will work on a patch that people can review and test.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[email protected] | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
