From: "Tom Lane" <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Another point to keep in mind is that UTF16 is not really any easier to deal with than UTF8, unless you write code that fails to support characters outside the basic multilingual plane. Which is a restriction I don't believe we'd accept. But without that restriction, you're still forced to deal with variable-width characters; and there's nothing very nice about the way that's done in UTF16. So on the whole I think it makes more sense to use UTF8 for this.
I feel so. I guess why Windows, Java, and Oracle chose UTF-16 is ... it was UCS-2 only with BMP when they chose it. So character handling was easier and faster thanks to fixed-width encoding.
Regards MauMau -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
