From: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Why are default encoding conversions namespace-specific? |
Date: | 2006-03-28 00:13:27 |
Message-ID: | 4548.24.211.165.134.1143504807.squirrel@www.dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane said:
> "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> Tom Lane said:
>>> What does it mean to have different "default" encoding conversions in
>>> different schemas? Even if this had a sensible interpretation, I
>>> don't think the existing code implements it properly.
>
>> perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but why not just resolve the namespace
>> at the time the default conversion is created?
>
> Isn't that the same thing as saying that there can only be one default
> conversion across all schemas? ("Only one" for a given source and
> target encoding pair, of course.) If it isn't the same, please explain
> more clearly.
>
>
Yeah, I guess it is. I was thinking of it more as "namespace-specified" than
as "non-namespace-aware". I guess it's a matter of perspective.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-28 03:03:59 | Re: [GENERAL] PANIC: heap_update_redo: no block |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-03-27 23:44:46 | Re: Why are default encoding conversions namespace-specific? |