On 05.10.23 19:30, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Agreed, at least until we understand the set of users per-column
> encoding is important to. I acknowledge that the presence of per-column
> encoding in the standard is some kind of signal there, but not enough
> by itself to justify something so invasive.
The per-column encoding support in SQL is clearly a legacy feature from
before Unicode. If one were to write something like SQL today, one
would most likely just specify, "everything is Unicode".
