Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I don't see how UCS-16 could always use only 2 bytes. Simple: it fails to handle Unicode code points above 0x10000. (We only recently fixed a similar limitation in our UTF8 support, by the by, but it *is* fixed and I doubt we want to backpedal.) The problem with embedded null bytes is quite serious though, and I doubt that we'll ever see the backend natively handling encodings that require that. It's just not worth the effort. Certainly the idea of not having to store a length word for CHAR(1) fields is not going to inspire anyone to invest the effort involved ;-) Keep in mind also that any such change would involve putting slower and more complicated logic into some routines that are hotspots already; so even if you did all the work involved, you might find the patch rejected on the grounds that it's a net performance loss. Most of the developers have plenty of tasks to do with a larger and more certain reward than this. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
