On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 05:35:41PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: > [...]. UTF-16 is > apparently sometimes preferred to save space in other RDBMSs that can > do it, but I suppose you could achieve the same size most of the time > with a scheme like that. [...]
[Off-topic] I think UTF-16 yielding smaller encodings is a truism. It really depends on what language the text is mostly written in, but mostly it's a truism that's not true. Anyways, UTF-16 has to go away, and the sooner the better. Nico --
