From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Hiroshi Inoue <inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Karsten Hilbert <Karsten(dot)Hilbert(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: encoding of PostgreSQL messages |
Date: | 2009-02-11 16:00:31 |
Message-ID: | 10045.1234368031@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Reflecting on the bigger picture ... I would imagine that the vast
>> majority of existing applications depend on client_encoding settings
>> that come from postgresql.conf, ALTER USER SET, ALTER DATABASE SET, or
>> just the default (== database encoding). I don't think a solution that
>> penalizes those cases and makes only the case of setting it via
>> PGCLIENTENCODING work nicely is going to make very many people happy.
> I don't have any survey data available, but I think this assessment is
> semantically wrong. Usefully, the client encoding can come only from
> the client, or be defaulted (and even that is semantically wrong).
In an ideal world, perhaps so, but do you deny my point that that's not
reality?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-02-11 16:11:25 | Re: Tsearch2 Trigger Problem: pg_catalog.simple does not exist |
Previous Message | SHARMILA JOTHIRAJAH | 2009-02-11 15:58:10 | Re: dbi_link help |