Re: WIN1252 patch broke my database

Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > You shouldn't insert encodings in the middle, because those numbers are
> > exposed to clients. We've had troubles with that before. If you add
> > an encoding, append it as the last one (before the client encodings in
> > this case). This would probably also eliminate the need for the
> > initdb.
>
> It doesn't eliminate the need for initdb, because pg_conversion contains
> instances of the client-only encoding numbers. I think that clients
> know the client-only encoding numbers too, so I'm not sure we aren't
> stuck with a compatibility issue.
>
> Perhaps, as long as we are forced to renumber, we should reassign the
> client-only encodings to higher numbers (starting at 100, perhaps)
> so that there will be daylight to avoid this issue in the future.
> This would cost some wasted space in the tables, I think, but that
> could be worked around if it's large enough to be annoying.

What should I do with the CVS code now? Why is adding a gap between
client/server and client-only encodings in pg_wchar.h going to waste
space?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073