> An aside: I was thinking about this some, from the PoV of using our
> existing type system to handle this (as you might remember, this is an
> inclination I've had for quite a while). I think that most things line
> up fairly well to allow this (and having transaction-enabled features
> may require it), but do notice that the SQL feature of allowing a
> different character set for every column *name* does not map
> particularly well to our underlying structures.
I've been think this for a while too. What about collation? If we add
new chaset A and B, and each has 10 collations then we are going to
have 20 new types? That seems overkill to me.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
