nvarchar notation accepted?
in [PgSql]
|
Prev: pgsql: Add PGFILEDESCdescription to Makefiles for all /contrib
Next: [HACKERS] Generalized Inverted Generalized Search Tree
From: Takahiro Itagaki on 13 May 2010 23:13 Jaime Casanova <jaime(a)2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > i migrate a ms sql server database to postgres and was trying some > queries from the application to find if everything works right... > when i was looking to those queries i found some that has a notation > for nvarchar (ej: campo = N'sometext') Do you have documentation for N'...' literal in SQLServer? Does it mean unicode literal? What is the difference from U& literal? http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/sql-syntax-lexical.html PostgreSQL doesn't have nvarchar types (UTF16 in MSSQL), and only have mutlti-tyte characters. So I think you can remove N and just use "SET client_encoding = UTF8" in the cases. Regards, --- Takahiro Itagaki NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Tom Lane on 13 May 2010 23:52 Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki.takahiro(a)oss.ntt.co.jp> writes: > Jaime Casanova <jaime(a)2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> i migrate a ms sql server database to postgres and was trying some >> queries from the application to find if everything works right... >> when i was looking to those queries i found some that has a notation >> for nvarchar (ej: campo = N'sometext') > Do you have documentation for N'...' literal in SQLServer? > Does it mean unicode literal? What is the difference from U& literal? > http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/sql-syntax-lexical.html > PostgreSQL doesn't have nvarchar types (UTF16 in MSSQL), and only > have mutlti-tyte characters. So I think you can remove N and just > use "SET client_encoding = UTF8" in the cases. Actually, the lexer translates N'foo' to NCHAR 'foo' and then the grammar treats that just like CHAR 'foo'. In short, the N doesn't do anything very useful, and it certainly doesn't have any effect on encoding behavior. I think this is something Tom Lockhart put in ten or so years back, and never got as far as making it actually do anything helpful. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Jaime Casanova on 13 May 2010 23:58 On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Actually, the lexer translates N'foo' to NCHAR 'foo' and then the > grammar treats that just like CHAR 'foo'.  In short, the N doesn't do > anything very useful, and it certainly doesn't have any effect on > encoding behavior.  I think this is something Tom Lockhart put in ten or > so years back, and never got as far as making it actually do anything > helpful. > so, the N'' syntax is fine and i don't need to hunt them as a migration step? -- Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Tom Lane on 14 May 2010 00:00 Jaime Casanova <jaime(a)2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Actually, the lexer translates N'foo' to NCHAR 'foo' and then the >> grammar treats that just like CHAR 'foo'. In short, the N doesn't do >> anything very useful, and it certainly doesn't have any effect on >> encoding behavior. I think this is something Tom Lockhart put in ten or >> so years back, and never got as far as making it actually do anything >> helpful. > so, the N'' syntax is fine and i don't need to hunt them as a migration step? As long as the implied cast to char(n) doesn't cause you problems, it's fine. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Jaime Casanova on 13 May 2010 23:56
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki.takahiro(a)oss.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > > Jaime Casanova <jaime(a)2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> i migrate a ms sql server database to postgres and was trying some >> queries from the application to find if everything works right... >> when i was looking to those queries i found some that has a notation >> for nvarchar (ej: campo = N'sometext') > > Do you have documentation for N'...' literal in SQLServer? > Does it mean unicode literal? What is the difference from U& literal? > http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/sql-syntax-lexical.html > nop, only thing i found is about NVARCHAR: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms186939.aspx but it has no examples about the N'' notation although you can find examples of it use here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd776381.aspx#BasicSyntax > PostgreSQL doesn't have nvarchar types (UTF16 in MSSQL), and only > have mutlti-tyte characters. So I think you can remove N and just > use "SET client_encoding = UTF8" in the cases. > i don't want to remove it! i'm trying to understand if this is a bug that will be removed if no i can safely tell my client to not look for those queries so it has less work to do for the migration -- Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |