Thread

1. MB patch

   Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp> — 1998-02-12T02:10:58Z

   Hello,
   
   I have made patches that allow PostgreSQL to handle multi-byte
   characters. The patches makes most commands including "regexp" and
   "like" 8 bit, multi-byte aware. You have a choice of one of followings
   for coding schema at the compile time:
   
   	1. single byte 7 bit ASCII/8 bit characters(mostly used in Europ)
   	2. EUC (extend Unix Code) for Japanese, Chinese and Korean
   	3. UNICODE (UTF-8)
   	4. Mule internal code
   
   I only modified include/regexp, backend/regex and
   backend/utils/adt/like.c. So the patches would not affect other parts
   of PostgreSQL, I believe.
   Note that I changed regexp coming with PostgreSQL rather than
   borrowing GNU's regex to avoid license issues.
   
   Should I post the patches for 6.3b now or wait after v6.3?
   --
   Tatsuo Ishii
   t-ishii@sra.co.jp
   
   

2. Re: [HACKERS] MB patch

   Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 1998-02-13T04:45:12Z

   On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 t-ishii@sra.co.jp wrote:
   
   > Hello,
   > 
   > I have made patches that allow PostgreSQL to handle multi-byte
   > characters. The patches makes most commands including "regexp" and
   > "like" 8 bit, multi-byte aware. You have a choice of one of followings
   > for coding schema at the compile time:
   > 
   > 	1. single byte 7 bit ASCII/8 bit characters(mostly used in Europ)
   > 	2. EUC (extend Unix Code) for Japanese, Chinese and Korean
   > 	3. UNICODE (UTF-8)
   > 	4. Mule internal code
   > 
   > I only modified include/regexp, backend/regex and
   > backend/utils/adt/like.c. So the patches would not affect other parts
   > of PostgreSQL, I believe.
   > Note that I changed regexp coming with PostgreSQL rather than
   > borrowing GNU's regex to avoid license issues.
   > 
   > Should I post the patches for 6.3b now or wait after v6.3?
   
   	Please hold these until post v6.3 ... only two weeks left for
   release, and with the currently reproducable bug that has been found,
   throwing in new code isn't a good idea :(
   
   
   Marc G. Fournier                                
   Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
   primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 
   
   
   

3. Re: [HACKERS] MB patch

   Peter T Mount <psqlhack@maidast.demon.co.uk> — 1998-02-13T19:54:00Z

   On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
   
   > On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 t-ishii@sra.co.jp wrote:
   > 
   > > 	1. single byte 7 bit ASCII/8 bit characters(mostly used in Europ)
   > > 	2. EUC (extend Unix Code) for Japanese, Chinese and Korean
   > > 	3. UNICODE (UTF-8)
   > > 	4. Mule internal code
   > > 
   > > I only modified include/regexp, backend/regex and
   > > backend/utils/adt/like.c. So the patches would not affect other parts
   > > of PostgreSQL, I believe.
   > > Note that I changed regexp coming with PostgreSQL rather than
   > > borrowing GNU's regex to avoid license issues.
   > > 
   > > Should I post the patches for 6.3b now or wait after v6.3?
   > 
   > 	Please hold these until post v6.3 ... only two weeks left for
   > release, and with the currently reproducable bug that has been found,
   > throwing in new code isn't a good idea :(
   
   Another reason is that the UTF code may be handy for the JDBC driver -
   occasionally I get questions about how Unicode is handled. Currently I'm
   saying "It isn't yet".
   
   However, this is something I wont be able to get round to until 6.3 is
   out.
   
   -- 
   Peter T Mount  petermount@earthling.net or pmount@maidast.demon.co.uk
   Main Homepage: http://www.demon.co.uk/finder
   Work Homepage: http://www.maidstone.gov.uk Work EMail: peter@maidstone.gov.uk