On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 1:22 PM Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2025年8月4日 21:51，Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote：
>
> So on the whole I'd lean a bit towards just redefining GB18030 as
> meaning the new standard. The fact that we don't support it as a
> server-side encoding perhaps makes that idea more tenable than it
> would be if the encoding governed the interpretation of our own
> stored data.
> I agree with Tom that we may just redefine GB18030 to comply with the 2022 standard.
>
> As John Naylor pointed, 2022 is not backward compatible, that is true. However, I went through all the incompatible
changes,those are all characters rarely used.
If that's the case than redefining is probably okay.
> One use case I am thinking is that, say a database uses default encoding (UTF-8) and ICU locale provider. As ICU
startedto support GB180303-2022 since version 73.1.
ICU locales can only be used with sever-side encodings.
> At the time when the new version is released, if some third party migration tools are known working fine, the release
notemay recommend the tools.
I highly doubt such a large hammer will be necessary. Whatever advice
we give for discovery and conversion of affected text is our
responsibility and can be in the form of example queries.
--
John Naylor
Amazon Web Services
