| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Hannu Krosing" <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Client encoding conversion for binary data (was Re: |
| Date: | 2003-05-15 08:20:08 |
| Message-ID: | 077f01c31aba$d15fedb0$6500a8c0@fhp.internal |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Yes, it seems completely bogus. The whole reason for existance of
> client-side encodings is that each client may have its own (and even the
> same client may use several, at least for diffrent connections).
>
> > On the other
> > hand, there's still the point about dumping a file one way and loading
> > it back the other. Also, it's probably unwise to change this behavior
> > without a really good argument for doing so, since (AFAIR) we've not
> > had bug reports about it.
>
> It works both ways, i.e. the lack of bug reports may also suggest that
> nobody is doing it (copy file to server, then load the same file from
> client)
>
> > Comments anyone?
Perhaps we should just have a flag in the COPY grammar 'WITH/OUT CONVERSION'
that specifies that an encoding is required...
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-05-15 12:54:51 | Re: Client encoding conversion for binary data (was Re: GUC and postgresql.conf docs) |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2003-05-15 07:37:45 | Re: Client encoding conversion for binary data (was Re: |