Re: FW: Character set equivalent for AL32UTF8

Mridul Mathew <mridulmathew(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> From: *Craig Ringer* <ringerc(at)ringerc(dot)id(dot)au>

>> A 30-second Google search turned up this:
>>
>>
http://decipherinfosys.wordpress.com/2007/01/28/difference-between-utf8-and-al32utf8-character-sets-in-oracle/

> If supplementary characters are inserted in a UTF8 database, they
> will be treated as 2 separate undefined characters, occupying 6
> bytes in storage. Oracle recommends using al32utf8 for any newly
> defined supplementary characters.
>
> Does PostgreSQL make a distinction within Unicode in a similar
> fashion?

It sounds as though Oracle initially failed to properly implement
the UTF-8 character encoding scheme, but rather than fix the broken
scheme they created an alternative. So far as I know, PostgreSQL
should be using proper UTF-8 encoding if you ask for it, without any
special gyrations.

-Kevin