> Hi， > > May "GB18030 server side support" deserve reconsidering, after about 15 years later than release of GB18030-2005? > It may be the one of most green features for PostgreSQL. Moving GB18030 to server side encoding requires a technical challenge: currently PostgreSQL's SQL parser and perhaps in other parts of backend assume that each byte in a string data is not confused with ASCII byte. Since GB18030's second and fourth byte are in range of 0x40 to 0x7e, backend will be confused. How do you resolve the technical challenge exactly? > 1. In this big data and mobile era, in the country with most population, 50% more disk energy consuming for Chinese characters (UTF-8 usually 3 bytes for a Chinese character, while GB180830 only 2 bytes) is indeed a harm to "Carbon Neutral", along with Polar ice melting. Really? I thought GB18030 uses up to 4 bytes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GB_18030#Encoding Best regards, -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
