Re: [HACKERS] again: Bug #943: Server-Encoding from EUC_TW to

> Hello,
> I reported bug #943 (I found in 7.3.2) and you checked in some change against integer overflow.
> Now I upgraded to 7.3.3 and I'm not happy with this.
> The exact error as I described is fixed, but I found new errors in conversion utf-8 <-> EUC_TW and BIG5:
>
> Copy to table (DB has utf-8 encoding) from file:
> for PGCLIENTENCODING=BIG5:
> WARNING: copy: line 1, LocalToUtf: could not convert (0xf9d6) BIG5 to utf-8. Ignored
> WARNING: copy: line 2, LocalToUtf: could not convert (0xf9d7) BIG5 to utf-8. Ignored
> WARNING: copy: line 3, LocalToUtf: could not convert (0xf9d8) BIG5 to utf-8. Ignored
> WARNING: copy: line 4, LocalToUtf: could not convert (0xf9db) BIG5 to utf-8. Ignored

I see no problem here. The only standard conversion map I could found
on-line form so far (see below URL) does not include entries 0xf9d6 or
above.

http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/Unihan.txt

> for EUC_TW
> WARNING: copy: line 1, LocalToUtf: could not convert (0x8ea3c3b7) EUC_TW to utf-8. Ignored
> WARNING: copy: line 2, LocalToUtf: could not convert (0x8ea3cfd0) EUC_TW to utf-8. Ignored
> WARNING: copy: line 3, LocalToUtf: could not convert (0x8ea3c4ce) EUC_TW to utf-8. Ignored
> WARNING: copy: line 4, LocalToUtf: could not convert (0x8ea3bdfe) EUC_TW to utf-8. Ignored

Hum. These seem to be CNS 11643-1993, plane 3. Currently PostgreSQL
supports only:

CNS 11643-1993, plane 0
CNS 11643-1993, plane 1
CNS 11643-1993, plane 2
CNS 11643-1993, plane 15

Would you like to have support for rest of CNS 11643-1993 planes:

CNS 11643-1993, plane 3
CNS 11643-1993, plane 4
CNS 11643-1993, plane 5
CNS 11643-1993, plane 6
CNS 11643-1993, plane 7

support for upcoming 7.4?

> Copy out to file from table (utf-8 data):
> to BIG5
> WARNING: UtfToLocal: could not convert utf-8 (0xe7a281). Ignored
> WARNING: UtfToLocal: could not convert utf-8 (0xe98ab9). Ignored
> WARNING: UtfToLocal: could not convert utf-8 (0xe8a38f). Ignored
> WARNING: UtfToLocal: could not convert utf-8 (0xe7b2a7). Ignored
>
> to EUC_TW is ok!

BIG5 and EUC_TW have different code points. So this is not very strange.
--
Tatsuo Ishii