Re: Patch: add conversion from pg_wchar to multibyte
От | Alexander Korotkov |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Patch: add conversion from pg_wchar to multibyte |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAPpHfdvcTiss1MetkZZth5yzMx=W+bqGuAAdesQ_9rQJmf7vjQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Patch: add conversion from pg_wchar to multibyte (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Patch: add conversion from pg_wchar to multibyte
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
------
With best regards,
Alexander Korotkov.
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 5:11 AM, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote:Changing the encoding would break pg_upgrade, so -1 from me on that.
>> MULE also looks problematic. The code that you've written isn't
>> symmetric with the opposite conversion, unlike what you did in all
>> other cases, and I don't understand why. I'm also somewhat baffled by
>> the reverse conversion: it treats a multi-byte sequence beginning with
>> a byte for which IS_LCPRV1(x) returns true as invalid if there are
>> less than 3 bytes available, but it only reads two; similarly, for
>> IS_LCPRV2(x), it demands 4 bytes but converts only 3.
>
> Should we save existing pg_wchar representation for MULE encoding? Probably,
> we can modify it like in 0.1 version of patch in order to make it more
> transparent.
I didn't realize that we store pg_wchar on disk somewhere. I thought it is only in-memory representation. Where do we store pg_wchar on disk?
With best regards,
Alexander Korotkov.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: