Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > One of ideas to avoid the concern could be "shifting" GB18030 code > points into "ASCII safe" code range with some calculations so that > backend can handle them without worrying about the concern above. This > way, we could avoid a table lookup overhead which is necessary in > conversion between GB18030 and UTF8 and so on. Hmm ... interesting idea, basically invent our own modified version of GB18030 (or SJIS?) for backend-internal storage. But I'm not sure how to make it work without enlarging the string, which'd defeat the OP's argument. It looks to me like the second-byte code space is already pretty full in both encodings. regards, tom lane
