Unicode or otherwise, a char is a char. I think you are confusing bytes with chars.

Jason

Lester Caine wrote:

> Dmitry Yemanov wrote:
>
>
>>"Jim Starkey" <jas@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"create domain rdb$user_name varchar(128) CHARACTER SET
>>>UNICODE_FSS;",
>>
>>Strictly speaking, user names are SQL identifiers and hence they should be
>>CHAR(31). As Claudio has pointed out, we don't support longer user names
>>anyway, neither at the system tables level nor perhaps at the code level.
>>The question is whether making it consistent really breaks something. Any
>>customers have user names longer than 31 characters without anything granted
>>to them?
>
>
> I think the question should be "Do we go for full SQL2003 compliance?"
> and make thinks that are currently limited to 31 characters move to the
> 64 character limit defined there.
> Not sure how UNICODE is covered in that limit from the SQL standard ;)
>