On 2023-10-04 23:32, Chapman Flack wrote:
> Well, for what reason does anybody run PG now with the encoding set
> to anything besides UTF-8? I don't really have my finger on that pulse.
> Could it be that it bloats common strings in their local script, and
> with enough of those to store, it could matter to use the local
> encoding that stores them more economically?
I do use CP1251 for storing some data which is coming in as XMLs in
CP1251, and thus definitely fits. In UTF-8, that data would take exactly
2x the size on disks (before compression, and pglz/lz4 won't help much
with that).
-- Ph.
