On Mar 21, 2006, at 6:50 AM, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
But I'm ademantly against building and maintaining a special UTF-8
collation library just for PostgreSQL. That's just reinventing the
wheel. There already exist cross-platform libraries to handle
collation
and we should work towards
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 06:07:16PM -0500, Vivek Khera wrote:
> So, if I use a UTF8 encoded DB on FreeBSD, all hell will break loose
> or what? Will things not compare correctly? Where from does the
> code to do the collating come, then?
It just won't collate properly. PostgreSQL collation is
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 08:54:36AM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> Is there any downside to using the C locale with UTF-8 encoding (on
> linux)? I need things to run quickly and proper sort order is not
> critically important (but storage of international characters is).
Sure, why not. C locale is
Is there any downside to using the C locale with UTF-8 encoding (on
linux)? I need things to run quickly and proper sort order is not
critically important (but storage of international characters is).
Merlin
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't fo
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 10:10:53AM -0500, Vivek Khera wrote:
>
> On Mar 21, 2006, at 6:50 AM, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>
> >But I'm ademantly against building and maintaining a special UTF-8
> >collation library just for PostgreSQL. That's just reinventing the
> >wheel. There already exist c
Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Shouldn't postgres be providing the collating routines for UTF8
> anyhow? How else can we guarantee identical behavior across platforms?
We don't make any such guarantee.
regards, tom lane
---(end of bro
On Mar 20, 2006, at 6:04 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Vivek Khera wrote:
Shouldn't postgres be providing the collating routines for UTF8
anyhow?
Start typing ...
So, if I use a UTF8 encoded DB on FreeBSD, all hell will break loose
or what? Will things not compare correctly? Where from d
Vivek Khera wrote:
> Shouldn't postgres be providing the collating routines for UTF8
> anyhow?
Start typing ...
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
On Mar 16, 2006, at 3:36 AM, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
Umm, you should choose an encoding supported by your platform and the
locales you use. For example, UTF-8 is a bad choice on *BSD because
there is no collation support for UTF-8 on those platforms. On
Linux/Glibc UTF-8 is well supported
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 03:11:27AM -0800, CSN wrote:
> I tried changing my database to UTF8 and then
> importing the dump (even tried iconv). It choked (on
> an accented e). Then somehow the database got created
> as LATIN9, and I was able to import successfully. I
> guess if it works, I'll be leav
I tried changing my database to UTF8 and then
importing the dump (even tried iconv). It choked (on
an accented e). Then somehow the database got created
as LATIN9, and I was able to import successfully. I
guess if it works, I'll be leaving it alone for the
time being.
I still have problems when em
> > Maybe we could even "suggest" UTF8 in the "getting started"
> (i.e. the
> > windows installer initdb screen, or other default
> installations) Sth.
> > like "if you do not know better, take utf8"
>
> UTF-8 on windows works pretty well.
It does, but it has an extra speed penalty. For any c
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 07:30:36AM +0100, Harald Armin Massa wrote:
> Good default encoding:
>
> does somebody NOT agree that UTF8 is quite a recommendation, at least for
> all the people without Korean, Japanese and Chinese Chars? I know, that's at
> maximum 2/3 of our potential user base, but be
Good default encoding:does somebody NOT agree that UTF8 is quite a recommendation, at least for all the people without Korean, Japanese and Chinese Chars? I know, that's at maximum 2/3 of our potential user base, but better then nothing.
Maybe we could even "suggest" UTF8 in the "getting started" (
"Junaili Lie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am wondering if somebody here can tell me the difference between
> UTF-8 and SQL-ASCII, whether there are any benefits of converting
> SQL-ASCII to UTF-8?
SQL_ASCII isn't really an encoding; it's more like a declaration of
ignorance. If the encoding i
I am wondering if somebody here can tell me the difference between
UTF-8 and SQL-ASCII, whether there are any benefits of converting
SQL-ASCII to UTF-8? If so, under what circumstances do we want to
convert to UTF-8?
Thanks,
On 3/15/06, Michael Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps oth
Perhaps others can comment on encoding versus type of data. I would
add that the manner in which data are accessed may also be a
consideration. Specifically, UTF-8 is a good choice if one is going to use
JDBC.
Michael Schmidt
On Mar 14, 2006, at 3:10 PM, CSN wrote:
If you're going to be putting emdashes, letters with
lines and circles above them, and similar stuff that's
mostly European and American in a database, what's a
good default encoding to use - UTF-8?
Yes, UTF-8 is good because it can represent every pos
If you're going to be putting emdashes, letters with
lines and circles above them, and similar stuff that's
mostly European and American in a database, what's a
good default encoding to use - UTF-8?
CSN
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail
19 matches
Mail list logo
