Re: Retiring some encodings?

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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