From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
---|---|
To: | "Bernd Helmle" <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "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 connections to 9.1 |
Date: | 2011-04-18 15:13:53 |
Message-ID: | 4DAC0EE1020000250003C947@gw.wicourts.gov |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I changed the client_encoding code so that it shows the normalized
> (official) name of the encoding, not whatever random string the
> client sent over. For instance, previous versions:
>
> regression=# set client_encoding = 'UnIcOdE';
> SET
The whole area of character sets and encoding schemes is confusing
enough without accepting a character set name as an encoding scheme
specification. I'll bet that in five or ten years we'll be
accepting more than one encoding scheme for the Unicode character
set.
> 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?
Can we fix the JDBC driver rather than reverting this? Long run,
I'd be in favor of just rejecting a character set name as a client
encoding specification. I think inferring one is being generous.
-Kevin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mike Fowler | 2011-04-18 15:14:08 | Re: [JDBC] JDBC connections to 9.1 |
Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2011-04-18 15:11:26 | Re: [JDBC] JDBC connections to 9.1 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mike Fowler | 2011-04-18 15:14:08 | Re: [JDBC] JDBC connections to 9.1 |
Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2011-04-18 15:11:26 | Re: [JDBC] JDBC connections to 9.1 |