Re: Pre-proposal: unicode normalized text

On Thu, 2023-10-05 at 14:52 -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> This is just how you encode the type of the string.  You have any
> number
> of options.  The point is that already PG can encode binary data, so
> if
> how to encode text of disparate encodings on the wire, building on
> top
> of the encoding of bytea is an option.

There's another significant discussion going on here:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoZ8r8xb_73WzKHGb00cV3tpHV_U0RHuzzMFKvLepdu2Jw@mail.gmail.com

about how to handle binary formats better, so it's not clear to me that
it's a great precedent to expand upon. At least not yet.

I think it would be interesting to think more generally about these
representational issues in a way that accounds for binary formats,
extra_float_digits, client_encoding, etc. But I see that as more of an
issue with how the client expects to receive the data -- nobody has a
presented a reason in this thread that we need per-column encodings on
the server.

Regards,
    Jeff Davis