Tatsuo Ishii kirjutas E, 20.10.2003 kell 15:37:
> > Tom Lane kirjutas E, 20.10.2003 kell 03:35:
> > > Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk> writes:
> > > > There is a bug in Unicode upper() which has been present since 7.2:
> > >
> > > We don't support upper/lower in multibyte character sets, and can't as
> > > long as the functionality is dependent on <ctype.h>'s toupper()/tolower().
> > > It's been suggested that we could use <wctype.h> where available.
> > > However there are a bunch of issues that would have to be solved to make
> > > that happen. (How do we convert between the database character encoding
> > > and the wctype representation?
> >
> > How do we do it for sorting ?
> >
> > > How do we even find out what
> > > representation the current locale setting expects to use?)
> >
> > Why not use the same locale settings as for sorting (i.e. databse
> > encoding) until we have a proper multi-locale support in the backend ?
>
> There's absolutely no relationship between database encoding and
> locale.
How does the system then use locale for sorting and not for upper/lower
?
I would have rather expected the opposite, as lower/uper rules are litte
more locale independent than collation.
> IMO depending on the system locale is a completely wrong
> design decision and we should go toward for having our own collate
> data.
I agree completely. We could probably lift something from IBM's ICU.
-----------------
Hannu