On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > On 11/5/13, 1:04 AM, Arulappan, Arul Shaji wrote: >> Implements NCHAR/NVARCHAR as distinct data types, not as synonyms > > If, per SQL standard, NCHAR(x) is equivalent to CHAR(x) CHARACTER SET > "cs", then for some "cs", NCHAR(x) must be the same as CHAR(x). > Therefore, an implementation as separate data types is wrong.
Interesting. Since the point doesn't seem to be getting through, let me try to be more clear: we're not going to accept any form of this patch. A patch that makes some progress toward actually coping with multiple encodings in the same database would be very much worth considering, but adding compatible syntax with incompatible semantics is not of interest to the PostgreSQL project. We have had this debate on many other topics in the past and will no doubt have it again in the future, but the outcome is always the same. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
