Re: Unicode upper() bug still present

Karel Zak kirjutas T, 21.10.2003 kell 10:50:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 10:58:00PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 
> > (Note that I say Unicode a lot here because those people do a lot of
> > research and standardization in this area, which is available for free,
> > but this does not constrain the result to work only with the Unicode
> > character set.)
> 
>  Why  cannot  do PostgreSQL  as  100%  pure  Unicode system? We  can  do
>  conversion  from/to  others  encodings as  client/server  communication
>  extension, but  internaly in BE  we can  use only pure  Unicode data. I
>  think a lot of things will more simple...

I've heard that some far-east languages have had some issues with 16-bit
UNICODE, but the 32-bit should have fixed it.

I would also support a move to UNICODE (store as SCSU, process as 16 or
32 bit wchars, i/o as UTF-8) for NCHAR/NVARCHAR/NTEXT and pure 7-bit
byte-value ordered ASCII for CHAR/VARCHAR/TEXT.

But this would surely have some issues with backward compatibility.

------------
Hannu