On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
So, we do have a bug, and we are probably going to need to fix it in
8.0.X.
This has never worked in all the years we have had Unicode
functionality, so I don't understand why we have to rush to fix it now.
Certainly, it ought to be
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> So, we do have a bug, and we are probably going to need to fix it in
>> 8.0.X.
> This has never worked in all the years we have had Unicode
> functionality, so I don't understand why we have to rush to fix it now.
> Certainl
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> So, we do have a bug, and we are probably going to need to fix it in
> 8.0.X.
This has never worked in all the years we have had Unicode
functionality, so I don't understand why we have to rush to fix it now.
Certainly, it ought to be fixed, but not in a minor release.
-
[ This email to hackers from last night got lost so I am remailing.]
Tom Lane wrote:
> "John Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> That is backpatched to 8.0.X. Does that not fix the problem reported?
>
> > No, as andrew said, what this patch does, is allow values > 0x and
> > at the sam
