On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 05:35:41PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> [...]. UTF-16 is
> apparently sometimes preferred to save space in other RDBMSs that can
> do it, but I suppose you could achieve the same size most of the time
> with a scheme like that. [...]
[Off-topic] I think UTF-16 yielding smaller encodings is a truism. It
really depends on what language the text is mostly written in, but
mostly it's a truism that's not true. Anyways, UTF-16 has to go away,
and the sooner the better.
Nico
--
