Re: Retiring some encodings?

From: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: myon(at)debian(dot)org
Cc: michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, daniel(at)yesql(dot)se, andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net, devops(at)ww-it(dot)cn, ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org, qiuwenhuifx(at)gmail(dot)com, hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi, bruce(at)momjian(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, tony(dot)zhu(at)ww-it(dot)cn
Subject: Re: Retiring some encodings?
Date: 2025-06-05 23:50:56
Message-ID: 20250606.085056.525174573937784302.ishii@postgresql.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>> Agreed that the so-said "state" level requirement would be a
>> non-starter.
>
> Or maybe support for using these as server encodings could be
> removed, keeping the client_encoding part intact?

GB18030 is already client encoding only, and cannot be used as a
server encoding. The only way to save GB18030 data into database is,
converting GB18030 to UTF-8 (which can be done automatically).

Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS K.K.
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en/
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2025-06-05 23:53:40 We should lazy-initialize the deadlock checker state memory
Previous Message Tom Lane 2025-06-05 23:31:51 Re: Non-reproducible AIO failure