On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> More seriously, Unicode is filled with tons of confusion and
> inconsistency IMO. Remember that once Unicode adovocates said that the
> merit of Unicode was it only requires 16-bit width. Now they say they
> need surrogate pairs and 32-bit width chars...
>
> Anyway my point is if current specification of Unicode only allows
> 24-bit range, why we need to allow usage against the specification?
Whatever problems they have had in the past, the ISO 10646 defines
formally a 31-bit character set. Are you saying that applications should
reject strings that contain characters that it does not recognize?
Is there a specific reason you want to restrict it to 24 bits? In practice
it does not matter much since it's not used today, I just don't know why
you want it.
--
/Dennis Björklund
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
