On 2005-04-10, "John Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's right, dono how I missed that one, but looks correct to me, and
> is in line with the code in ConvertUTF.c from unicode.org, on which I
> based the patch, extended to support 6 byte utf8 characters.
Frankly, you should probably de-ex
Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah? Cool. Does John's proposed patch do it "correctly"?
>
> http://candle.pha.pa.us/mhonarc/patches2/msg00076.html
Some comments on that patch:
Doesn't pg_utf2wchar_with_len need changes for the longer sequences?
UtfToLocal also appears to need changes.
If we support seq
>On 2005-04-10, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andrew - Supernews
writes:
>>> I think you will find that this impression is actually false. Or
that at
>>> the very least, _correct_ verification of UTF-8 sequences will still
>>> catch essentially all cases of non-utf-8 input mislabelled as utf-8
>>> while all
On 2005-04-10, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew - Supernews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I think you will find that this impression is actually false. Or that at
>> the very least, _correct_ verification of UTF-8 sequences will still
>> catch essentially all cases of non-utf-8 input m
Andrew - Supernews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2005-04-10, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The impression I get is that most of the 'Unicode characters above
>> 0x1' reports we've seen did not come from people who actually needed
>> more-than-16-bit Unicode codepoints, but from peop
On 2005-04-10, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The impression I get is that most of the 'Unicode characters above
> 0x1' reports we've seen did not come from people who actually needed
> more-than-16-bit Unicode codepoints, but from people who had screwed up
> their encoding settings and
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 same time validates the input to make sure it's valid utf8.
>
> The impre
"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 same time validates the input to make sure it's valid utf8.
The impression I get is that most of th
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Momjian
> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 8:18 AM
> To: Christopher Kings-Lynne
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Unicode problems on IRC
>
&
On 2005-04-09, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Uh, I thought we fixed this another way, buy not using Unicode-aware
> functions for upper/lower/initcap when the locale is "C" or "POSIX".
> That is backpatched to 8.0.X. Does that not fix the problem reported?
Unicode values over 0x are simply not acc
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> The 'Unicode characters above 0x1' issue keeps rearing its ugly head
> in the IRC channel. I propose that it be fixed, even backported...
>
> This is John Hansen's most recent patch to fix it:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2
11 matches
Mail list logo
