> An aside: I was thinking about this some, from the PoV of using our > existing type system to handle this (as you might remember, this is an > inclination I've had for quite a while). I think that most things line > up fairly well to allow this (and having transaction-enabled features > may require it), but do notice that the SQL feature of allowing a > different character set for every column *name* does not map > particularly well to our underlying structures.
I've been think this for a while too. What about collation? If we add new chaset A and B, and each has 10 collations then we are going to have 20 new types? That seems overkill to me. -- Tatsuo Ishii ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
