Re: Re: Big 7.1 open items
От | Tatsuo Ishii |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: Big 7.1 open items |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20000616230357D.t-ishii@sra.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: Big 7.1 open items (Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> > o Don't accept character sequences those are not valid as their > > charset (signaling ERROR seems appropriate IMHO) > > o Make PostgreSQL more multibyte aware (for example, TRIM function and > > NAME data type) > > o Regard n of CHAR(n)/VARCHAR(n) as the number of letters, rather than > > the number of bytes > > All good, and important features when we are done. Glad to hear that. > One issue: I can see (or imagine ;) how we can use the Postgres type > system to manage multiple character sets. But allowing arbitrary > character sets in, say, table names forces us to cope with allowing a > mix of character sets in a single column of a system table. afaik this > general capability is not mandated by SQL9x (the SQL_TEXT character set > is used for all system resources??). Would it be acceptable to have a > "default database character set" which is allowed to creep into the > pg_xxx tables? Even that seems to be a difficult thing to accomplish at > the moment (we'd need to get some of the text manipulation functions > from the catalogs, not from hardcoded references as we do now). "default database character set" idea does not seem to be the solution for cross-db relations such as pg_database. The only solution I can imagine so far is using SQL_TEXT. BTW, I've been thinking about SQL_TEXT for a while and it seems mule_internal_code or Unicode(UTF-8) would be the candidates for it. Mule_internal_code looks more acceptable for Asian multi-byte users like me than Unicode. It's clean, simple and does not require huge conversion tables between Unicode and other encodings. However, Unicode has a stronger political power in the real world and for most single-byte users probably it would be enough. My idea is let users choose one of them. I mean making it a compile time option. > We should itemize all of these issues so we can keep track of what is > necessary, possible, and/or "easy". You are right, probably there would be tons of issues in implementing multiple charsets support. -- Tatsuo Ishii
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: