On Tue, 2002-07-09 at 03:47, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > An aside: I was thinking about this some, from the PoV of using our
> > existing type system to handle this (as you might remember, this is an
> > inclination I've had for quite a while). I think that most things line
> > up fairly well to allow this (and having transaction-enabled features
> > may require it), but do notice that the SQL feature of allowing a
> > different character set for every column *name* does not map
> > particularly well to our underlying structures.
>
> I've been think this for a while too. What about collation? If we add
> new chaset A and B, and each has 10 collations then we are going to
> have 20 new types? That seems overkill to me.
Can't we do all collating in unicode and convert charsets A and B to and
from it ?
I would even reccommend going a step further and storing all 'national'
character sets in unicode.
--------------
Hannu