Re: Unicode upper() bug still present
От | Tatsuo Ishii |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Unicode upper() bug still present |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20031020.213715.74754803.t-ishii@sra.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Unicode upper() bug still present (Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>) |
Ответы |
Re: Unicode upper() bug still present
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> Tom Lane kirjutas E, 20.10.2003 kell 03:35: > > Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk> writes: > > > There is a bug in Unicode upper() which has been present since 7.2: > > > > We don't support upper/lower in multibyte character sets, and can't as > > long as the functionality is dependent on <ctype.h>'s toupper()/tolower(). > > It's been suggested that we could use <wctype.h> where available. > > However there are a bunch of issues that would have to be solved to make > > that happen. (How do we convert between the database character encoding > > and the wctype representation? > > How do we do it for sorting ? > > > How do we even find out what > > representation the current locale setting expects to use?) > > Why not use the same locale settings as for sorting (i.e. databse > encoding) until we have a proper multi-locale support in the backend ? There's absolutely no relationship between database encoding and locale. IMO depending on the system locale is a completely wrong design decision and we should go toward for having our own collate data. (I think Oracle does this way) -- Tatsuo Ishii
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: