| From: | DEVOPS_WwIT <devops(at)ww-it(dot)cn> |
|---|---|
| To: | 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: | 2025-05-25 00:58:13 |
| Message-ID: | 45b4b689-0e78-4d30-a5f9-1a39d01ab2b7@ww-it.cn |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
Tony
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2025-05-25 02:45:52 | Re: Non-reproducible AIO failure |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2025-05-24 22:01:21 | Re: PATCH: jsonpath string methods: lower, upper, initcap, l/r/btrim, replace, split_part |