Thread

1. RE: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] char/varchar locale support

   Peter Mount <peter@maidstone.gov.uk> — 1998-05-18T15:50:39Z

   I can't remember what the outcome was, but what about UNICODE?
   
   One of the partially implemented bits of JDBC is the handling of UNICODE
   strings (which Java uses all the time).
   
   --
   Peter T Mount, peter@maidstone.gov.uk, peter@retep.org.uk
   JDBC FAQ: http://www.retep.org.uk/postgres
   Please note that this is from my works email. If you reply, please cc my
   home address.
   
   
   -----Original Message-----
   From: owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org [mailto:owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org]On
   Behalf Of Thomas G. Lockhart
   Sent: Monday, May 18, 1998 4:43 PM
   To: phd2@earthling.net
   Cc: Mattias Kregert; Postgres Hackers List; oleg@sai.msu.su; Tatsuo
   Ishii
   Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] char/varchar locale support
   
   
   > > Shouldn't this be done only for NATIONAL CHAR?
   >    It is what USE_LOCALE is intended for, isn't it?
   
   SQL92 defines NATIONAL CHAR/VARCHAR as the data type to support implicit
   local character sets. The usual CHAR/VARCHAR would use the default
   SQL_TEXT character set. I suppose we could extend it to include NATIONAL
   TEXT also...
   
   Additionally, SQL92 allows one to specify an explicit character set and
   an explicit collating sequence. The standard is not explicit on how one
   actually makes these known to the database, but Postgres should be well
   suited to accomplishing this.
   
   Anyway, I'm not certain how common and wide-spread the NATIONAL CHAR
   usage is. Would users with installations having non-English data find
   using NCHAR/NATIONAL CHAR/NATIONAL CHARACTER an inconvenience? Or would
   most non-English installations find this better and more solid??
   
   At the moment we have support for Russian and Japanese character sets,
   and these would need the maintainers to agree to changes.
   
   btw, if we do implement NATIONAL CHARACTER I would like to do so by
   having it fit in with the full SQL92 character sets and collating
   sequences capabilities. Then one could specify what NATIONAL CHAR means
   for an installation or perhaps at run time without having to
   recompile...
   
                             - Tom
   
   
   

2. Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] char/varchar locale support

   Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> — 1998-05-18T16:29:13Z

   > I can't remember what the outcome was, but what about UNICODE?
   > One of the partially implemented bits of JDBC is the handling of 
   > UNICODE strings (which Java uses all the time).
   
   I can't remember the outcome either, but when this was discussed on the
   list earlier I had posted a url reference to a character coding
   discussion from the DocBook SGML folks. I vaguely recall that (for their
   typesetting purposes) UNICODE didn't solve all problems.
   
   I also vaguely recall that the most common extended-byte encoding
   sequence is that used in Japan (EUC-jp?).
   
   Are we ready to gear up for another discussion on this topic? If so,
   someone should go through the archives and summarize the previous
   discussions so we don't re-invent the wheel...
   
                        - Tom
   
   

3. Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] char/varchar locale support

   Brett McCormick <brett@work.chicken.org> — 1998-05-18T16:31:08Z

   speaking of archives, the digest archives are a little hard to use..
   a standard mailing list archive would be grand -- I can probably point
   to some software if need be.  are the postgres lists archived in the
   standard majordomo way? (as in, berkeley mail format?)
   
   On Mon, 18 May 1998, at 16:29:13, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:
   
   > > I can't remember what the outcome was, but what about UNICODE?
   > > One of the partially implemented bits of JDBC is the handling of 
   > > UNICODE strings (which Java uses all the time).
   > 
   > I can't remember the outcome either, but when this was discussed on the
   > list earlier I had posted a url reference to a character coding
   > discussion from the DocBook SGML folks. I vaguely recall that (for their
   > typesetting purposes) UNICODE didn't solve all problems.
   > 
   > I also vaguely recall that the most common extended-byte encoding
   > sequence is that used in Japan (EUC-jp?).
   > 
   > Are we ready to gear up for another discussion on this topic? If so,
   > someone should go through the archives and summarize the previous
   > discussions so we don't re-invent the wheel...
   > 
   >                      - Tom