Horton

Re: Retiring some encodings?

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>

View thread
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
To: DEVOPS_WwIT <devops@ww-it.cn>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>
Cc: daniel@yesql.se, qiuwenhuifx@gmail.com, hlinnaka@iki.fi, bruce@momjian.us, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, ZHU XIAN WEN <tony.zhu@ww-it.cn>
Date: 2025-05-26T16:07:02Z
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