Tom Lane wrote: > Yeah? Cool. Does John's proposed patch do it "correctly"? > > http://candle.pha.pa.us/mhonarc/patches2/msg00076.html
Some comments on that patch: Doesn't pg_utf2wchar_with_len need changes for the longer sequences? UtfToLocal also appears to need changes. If we support sequences >4 bytes (>U+10FFFF), then UtfToLocal/LocalToUtf and the associated translation tables need a redesign as they currently assume the sequence fits in an unsigned int. (IIRC, Unicode doesn't use >U+10FFFF, but UTF-8 can encode it?) -O ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
