Mridul Mathew <mridulmat...@gmail.com> wrote: > From: *Craig Ringer* <ring...@ringerc.id.au>
>> A 30-second Google search turned up this: >> >> http://decipherinfosys.wordpress.com/2007/01/28/difference-between-utf8-and-al32utf8-character-sets-in-oracle/ > If supplementary characters are inserted in a UTF8 database, they > will be treated as 2 separate undefined characters, occupying 6 > bytes in storage. Oracle recommends using al32utf8 for any newly > defined supplementary characters. > > Does PostgreSQL make a distinction within Unicode in a similar > fashion? It sounds as though Oracle initially failed to properly implement the UTF-8 character encoding scheme, but rather than fix the broken scheme they created an alternative. So far as I know, PostgreSQL should be using proper UTF-8 encoding if you ask for it, without any special gyrations. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
