Re: Unicode support

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> This isn't about the number of bytes, but about whether or not we should 
> count characters encoded as two or more combined code points as a single 
> char or not.

It's really about whether we should support non-canonical encodings.
AFAIK that's a hack to cope with implementations that are restricted
to UTF-16, and we should Just Say No.  Clients that are sending these
things converted to UTF-8 are in violation of the standard.
        regards, tom lane