| From: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Passing server_encoding to the client is not future-proof |
| Date: | 2003-07-29 13:53:56 |
| Message-ID: | 1059486834.52827.7.camel@jester |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc |
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 09:50, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > Then why did we add a GUC variable "server_encoding" at all?
>
> The JDBC guys wanted to know it. Why is not clear to me, but I figured
> it was easy enough to make them happy.
It could still be useful for stored procedures (particularly Java ones)
which would have to deal with the encoding at the server.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Carlos Guzman Alvarez | 2003-07-29 14:04:16 | Re: Passing server_encoding to the client is not future-proof |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-07-29 13:50:23 | Re: Passing server_encoding to the client is not future-proof |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fernando Nasser | 2003-07-29 14:00:28 | Re: Problem with LargeObject/jdbc when writing short (Repost) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-07-29 13:50:23 | Re: Passing server_encoding to the client is not future-proof |