Re: UTF8 or Unicode
От | Agent M |
---|---|
Тема | Re: UTF8 or Unicode |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 9285CC4B-7EFF-11D9-96D4-0030657192DA@themactionfaction.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: UTF8 or Unicode (Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams@oryx.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Feb 14, 2005, at 9:27 PM, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote: > >> I know UTF8 is a type of unicode but do we need to rename anything >> from Unicode to UTF8? > > I don't know. I'll go through the documentation to see if I can find > anything that needs changing. > It's not the documentation that is wrong. Specifying the database "encoding" as "Unicode" is simply a bug (see initdb). What if postgresql supports UTF-16 in the future? What would you call it? Also, the backend protocol also uses "UNICODE" when specifying the encoding. All the other encoding names are specified correctly AFAICS. I brought this up before: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-10/msg00811.php We could make UTF8 the canonical form in the aliasing mechanism, but beta 4 is a bit late to come up with this kind of idea. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: