Kurt Roeckx <Q@ping.be> writes:
> You can encode unicode in different ways, and UTF-8 is only one
> of them. Is there a problem with using UCS-2 (except that it
> would require more storage for ASCII)?
UCS-2 is impractical without some *extremely* wide-ranging changes in
the backend. To take just the most obvious point, doesn't it require
allowing embedded zero bytes in text strings?
regards, tom lane
