Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org> writes:
> My idea is using mule-internal encoding for the log file instead of
> UTF-8. There are several advantages:
> 1) Converion to mule-internal encoding is cheap because no conversion
> table is required. Also no information loss happens in this
> conversion.
> 2) Mule-internal encoding can be handled by emacs, one of the most
> popular editors in the world.
> 3) No need to worry about locale. Mule-internal encoding has enough
> information about language.
Um ... but ...
(1) nothing whatsoever can read MULE, except emacs and xemacs.
(2) there is more than one version of MULE (emacs versus xemacs,
not to mention any possible cross-version discrepancies).
(3) from a log volume standpoint, this could be pretty disastrous.
I'm not for a write-only solution, which is pretty much what this
would be.
regards, tom lane