On 18.09.2013 16:16, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 8:49 AM, MauMau<maumau...@gmail.com> wrote:
2. NCHAR/NVARCHAR columns can be used in non-UTF-8 databases and always
contain Unicode data.
...
3. Store strings in UTF-16 encoding in NCHAR/NVARCHAR columns.
Fixed-width encoding may allow faster string manipulation as described in
Oracle's manual. But I'm not sure about this, because UTF-16 is not a real
fixed-width encoding due to supplementary characters.
It seems to me that these two points here are the real core of your
proposal. The rest is just syntactic sugar.
Let me start with the second one: I don't think there's likely to be
any benefit in using UTF-16 as the internal encoding. In fact, I
think it's likely to make things quite a bit more complicated, because
we have a lot of code that assumes that server encodings have certain
properties that UTF-16 doesn't - specifically, that any byte with the
high-bit clear represents the corresponding ASCII character.
As to the first one, if we're going to go to the (substantial) trouble
of building infrastructure to allow a database to store data in
multiple encodings, why limit it to storing UTF-8 in non-UTF-8
databases? What about storing SHIFT-JIS in UTF-8 databases, or
Windows-yourfavoriteM$codepagehere in UTF-8 databases, or any other
combination you might care to name?
Whether we go that way or not, I think storing data in one encoding in
a database with a different encoding is going to be pretty tricky and
require far-reaching changes. You haven't mentioned any of those
issues or discussed how you would solve them.
I'm not too thrilled about complicating the system for that, either. If
you really need to deal with many different languages, you can do that
today by using UTF-8 everywhere. Sure, it might not be the most
efficient encoding for some characters, but it works.
There is one reason, however, that makes it a lot more compelling: we
already support having databases with different encodings in the same
cluster, but the encoding used in the shared catalogs, for usernames and
database names for example, is not well-defined. If we dealt with
different encodings in the same database, that inconsistency would go away.
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
