Re: [GENERAL] Language support of postgresql - Mailing list pgsql-general

From John R Pierce
Subject Re: [GENERAL] Language support of postgresql
Date
Msg-id 1a9fe69c-26b6-9935-0bcd-c7c1b6661e45@hogranch.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] Language support of postgresql  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-general
On 5/2/2017 11:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> writes:
I thought Postgres supported client_encodings of BIG5, GB18030, and GBK, 
all of which can be stored in the server using either UTF8 or 
MULE_INTERNAL (MultiLingual EMACS) encodings for internal storage ?
Hm, there's MULE<=>BIG5 converters but I don't see any for GBK or
GB18030.  Also, it looks like the MULE<=>BIG5 converters do some
re-encoding, so it's not clear to me whether they're lossless,
which I assume is the concern driving this request.

I based my statement on misreading the tables on here, https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/multibyte.html  but, now I see, MULE only supports big5 and EUC_CN.    

My limited readings earlier about BIG5 suggested its a mess of conflicting extensions, E-TEN and others, and the GB* stuff wasn't much better.

Anyways, it seems to me like UTF8 is the correct server encoding for most all uses.

-- 
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Language support of postgresql
Next
From: Payal Singh
Date:
Subject: [GENERAL] Implicit typecasting to numeric in psql