Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> writes:
> Another way to look at this is in the context of compression: With
> unicode, characters are really 32bit values... But only a small range
> of these values is common. So we store and work with them in a
> compressed format, UTF-8.
> As such it might be more interesting to ask some other questions like:
> are we using the best compression algorithm for the application, and,
> why do we sometimes stack two compression algorithms?
Actually, the real reason we use UTF-8 and not any of the
sorta-fixed-size representations of Unicode is that the backend is by
and large an ASCII, null-terminated-string engine. *All* of the
supported backend encodings are ASCII-superset codes. Making
everything null-safe in order to allow use of UCS2 or UCS4 would be
a huge amount of work, and the benefit is at best questionable.
regards, tom lane
