On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 04:11, Itagaki Takahiro
> <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>>
>> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I can certainly review the win32 encoding patch, but I was rather
>>> hoping for some comments from others on if we're interested in a win32
>>> only solution, or if we want something more generic. Should we just go
>>> with the win32-only one for now?
>>
>> Yes, because Windows is only platform that supports UTF-16 encoding natively.
>> I believe my patch is the best solution for Windows even if we have another
>> approach for other platforms.
>
> Actually, I think a better argument is that since Windows will *never*
> accept UTF8 logging, and that's what most databases will be in, much
> of this patch will be required anyway. So I should probably review and
> get this part in while we think about other solutions *as well* for
> other platforms.
Given the above, it seems that perhaps we could go ahead and apply this?
...Robert