From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Nagaura, Ryohei" <nagaura(dot)ryohei(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, "Matsumura, Ryo" <matsumura(dot)ryo(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, "'jingwangian(at)gmail(dot)com'" <jingwangian(at)gmail(dot)com>, "'michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com'" <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, "'meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [suggestion]support UNICODE host variables in ECPG |
Date: | 2018-12-21 17:07:36 |
Message-ID: | 29222.1545412056@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Nagaura, Ryohei" <nagaura(dot)ryohei(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> writes:
> Tsunakawa-san
>> * What's the benefit of supporting UTF16 in host variables?
> 1) As byte per character is constant in UTF16 encoding, it can process strings more efficiently than other encodings.
I don't think I buy that argument; it falls down as soon as you consider
characters above U+FFFF. I worry that by supporting UTF16, we'd basically
be encouraging users to write code that fails on such characters, which
doesn't seem like good project policy.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2018-12-21 17:12:07 | Re: A few new options for vacuumdb |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-12-21 16:57:48 | Re: Tid scan improvements |