On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 6:42 PM, MauMau <maumau...@gmail.com> wrote: >> It seems to me that these two points here are the real core of your >> proposal. The rest is just syntactic sugar. > > No, those are "desirable if possible" features. What's important is to > declare in the manual that PostgreSQL officially supports national character > types, as I stated below.
That may be what's important to you, but it's not what's important to me. I am not keen to introduce support for nchar and nvarchar as differently-named types with identical semantics. And I think it's an even worse idea to introduce them now, making them work one way, and then later change the behavior in a backward-incompatible fashion. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
