Horton

C11: should we use char32_t for unicode code points?

Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2025-10-23T18:15:54Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

Now that we're using C11, should we use char32_t for unicode code
points?

Right now, we use pg_wchar for two purposes: 

  1. to abstract away some problems with wchar_t on platforms where
it's 16 bits; and
  2. hold unicode code point values

In UTF8, they are are equivalent and can be freely cast back and forth,
but not necessarily in other encodings. That can be confusing in some
contexts. Attached is a patch to use char32_t for the second purpose.

Both are equivalent to uint32, so there's no functional change and no
actual typechecking, it's just for readability.

Is this helpful, or needless code churn?

Regards,
	Jeff Davis

Commits

  1. Use C11 char16_t and char32_t for Unicode code points.

  2. Move comment about casts from pg_wchar.

  3. Comment typo fixes: pg_wchar_t should be pg_wchar.