Re: GB18030-2022 Support in PostgreSQL

From: wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: JiaoShuntian <jiaoshuntian(at)highgo(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: GB18030-2022 Support in PostgreSQL
Date: 2025-08-04 09:34:48
Message-ID: CAGjGUAJnnqXcZyNxJ6ia9XGuS7FjRT6KTtYNjCx0EnPOv3ntxA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi
😂,Not long ago, many people were rushing to remove this character set
because of a security vulnerability. I was honestly quite shocked when I
saw it.

Thanks

On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 4:08 PM JiaoShuntian <jiaoshuntian(at)highgo(dot)com> wrote:

> Hi hackers,
>
> I noticed that PostgreSQL currently supports GB18030 encoding based on the
> older GB18030-2000 standard (as seen in commits like extend GB18030
> conversion
> <https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=...>).
> However, China has since updated its mandatory character set standard
> to GB18030-2022, which includes additional characters and stricter
> compliance requirements.GB18030-2022 is now the official standard in China,
> and ensuring PostgreSQL’s full compliance would be beneficial for users in
> Chinese-speaking regions.
>
> I would like to ask:
>
> Are there any plans to upgrade PostgreSQL’s GB18030 support to the 2022
> version?Would the community be open to contributions in this area?
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> JiaoShuntian
>
> HighGo Inc.
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2025-08-04 09:41:13 Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication
Previous Message 矫顺田 2025-08-04 09:27:15 Re: GB18030-2022 Support in PostgreSQL