On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I agree that the Far Eastern systems that can't easily be replaced > by Unicode are that way mostly because they're a mess. But I'm > still of the opinion that locking ourselves into Unicode is a choice > we might regret, far down the road.
It's not a choice that has any obvious upside, so I have no reason to disagree. My point was only that Robert's contention that "You could argue that text-under-LATIN1 and text-under-UTF8 aren't really the same data type at all" seems wrong to me, because PostgreSQL seems to want to treat encoding as a property of the machine. This is evidenced by the fact that we expect applications to change client encoding "transparently". That is, client encoding may be changed without in any way affecting humans that speak a natural language that is provided for by the application's client encoding. That's a great ideal to have, and one that is very close to completely workable. -- Peter Geoghegan VMware vCenter Server https://www.vmware.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers