Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Why are default encoding conversions

From: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why are default encoding conversions
Date: 2006-03-27 22:56:03
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> See $SUBJECT.  It seems to me this is a bad idea for much the same
> reasons that we recently decided default index operator classes should
> not be namespace-specific:
> I don't mind having encoding conversions be named within schemas,
> but I propose that any given encoding pair be allowed to have only
> one default conversion, period, and that when we are looking for
> a default conversion we find it by a non-namespace-aware search.

That doesn't sound good idea to me.

> With the existing definition, any change in search_path could
> theoretically cause a change in client-to-server encoding conversion
> behavior, and this just seems like a really bad idea.  (It's only
> theoretical because we don't actually redo the conversion function
> search on a search_path change ... but if you think the existing
> definition is good then that's a bug.)

Then why do we have CREATE DEFAULT CONVERSION command at all?
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-03-27 23:02:23
Subject: Re: Why are default encoding conversions namespace-specific?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-03-27 22:45:54
Subject: Re: Domains as Subtypes

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group