Re: [HACKERS] Implications of multi-byte support in a distribution

Thomas Lockhart wrote:
>
> > >> That shouldn't be too difficult, if we have an encoding
> > >> infomation with each text column or literal. Maybe now is the
> > >> time to introuce NCHAR?
> > TL> I've been waiting for a go-ahead from folks who would use
> > TL> it. imho the way to do it is to use Postgres' type system to
> > TL> implement it, rather than, for example, encoding "type"
> > TL> information into each string. We can also define a "default
> > TL> encoding" for each database as a new column in pg_database...
> > What about sorting? Would it be possible to solve it in similar way?
> > If I'm not mistaken, there is currently no good way to use two different
> > kinds of sorting for one postmaster instance?
>
> Each encoding/character set can behave however you want. You can reuse
> collation and sorting code from another character set, or define a
> unique one.

Is it really inside one postmaster instance ?

If so, then is the character encoding defined at the create table /
create index
process (maybe even separately for each field ?) or can I specify it
when sort'ing ?

-----------------
Hannu