On 07/19/2012 03:24 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> BTW, I'm not stick with mule-internal encoding. What we need here is a
> "super" encoding which could include any existing encodings without
> information loss. For this purpose, I think we can even invent a new
> encoding(maybe something like very first prposal of ISO/IEC
> 10646?). However, using UTF-8 for this purpose seems to be just a
> disaster to me.
Good point re unified chars. That was always a bad idea, and that's just
one of the issues it causes.
I think these difficult encodings are where logging to dedicated file
per-database is useful.
I'm not convinced that a weird and uncommon encoding is the answer. I
guess as an alternative for people for whom it's useful if it's low cost
in terms of complexity/maintenance/etc...
--
Craig Ringer