| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | DEVOPS_WwIT <devops(at)ww-it(dot)cn>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | daniel(at)yesql(dot)se, qiuwenhuifx(at)gmail(dot)com, hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi, bruce(at)momjian(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, ZHU XIAN WEN <tony(dot)zhu(at)ww-it(dot)cn> |
| Subject: | Re: Retiring some encodings? |
| Date: | 2025-05-26 16:07:02 |
| Message-ID: | 2fb6d3f6-bdff-45af-be09-90b4ca6b90aa@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2025-05-24 Sa 8:58 PM, DEVOPS_WwIT wrote:
>
> Hi Michael
>
>> Yeah, that's a good point. I would also question what's the benefit
>> in using GB18030 over UTF-8, though. An obvious one I can see is
>> because legacy applications never get updated.
>>
> The GB18030 encoding standard is a mandatory Chinese character
> encoding standard required by regulations. Software sold and used in
> China must support GB18030, with its latest version being the 2023
> edition. The primary advantage of GB18030 is that most Chinese
> characters require only 2 bytes for storage, whereas UTF-8
> necessitates 3 bytes for the same characters. This makes GB18030
> significantly more storage-efficient compared to UTF-8 in terms of
> space utilization.
>
>
Given this, removing it seems like a non-starter.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB:https://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Arseniy Mukhin | 2025-05-26 16:28:47 | Re: Amcheck verification of GiST and GIN |
| Previous Message | Nazir Bilal Yavuz | 2025-05-26 15:54:17 | Re: Differential code coverage between 16 and HEAD |