On 07/19/2012 03:24 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
BTW, I'm not stick with mule-internal encoding. What we need here is a "super" encoding which could include any existing encodings without information loss. For this purpose, I think we can even invent a new encoding(maybe something like very first prposal of ISO/IEC 10646?). However, using UTF-8 for this purpose seems to be just a disaster to me.
Good point re unified chars. That was always a bad idea, and that's just one of the issues it causes.
I think these difficult encodings are where logging to dedicated file per-database is useful.
I'm not convinced that a weird and uncommon encoding is the answer. I guess as an alternative for people for whom it's useful if it's low cost in terms of complexity/maintenance/etc...
-- Craig Ringer -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
