| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Steve Singer <ssinger(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [JDBC] JDBC connections to 9.1 |
| Date: | 2011-04-18 15:24:04 |
| Message-ID: | 22630.1303140244@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc |
Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I wasn't aware that JDBC would fail on that. It's pretty annoying that
>> it does, but maybe we should grin and bear it, ie revert the change to
>> canonicalize the GUC's value?
> Older drivers will fail for sure. We can fix newer drivers, but if we
> leave it we will see a slew of bug reports.
Yeah. I'm thinking what we should do here is revert the change, with a
note in the source about why, and also change the JDBC driver to send
and expect "UTF8" not "UNICODE" (which as Kevin says is more correct
anyway). Then in a few releases' time we can un-revert the server
change.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-04-18 15:25:44 | Re: [JDBC] JDBC connections to 9.1 |
| Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2011-04-18 15:23:22 | Re: [JDBC] JDBC connections to 9.1 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-04-18 15:25:44 | Re: [JDBC] JDBC connections to 9.1 |
| Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2011-04-18 15:23:22 | Re: [JDBC] JDBC connections to 9.1 |