| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Question about encoding combinations |
| Date: | 2005-03-13 11:04:49 |
| Message-ID: | 200503131204.49994.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Why is BIG5 listed as not allowing UTF8 on the client, but you can
> have UTF8 on the server and BIG5 on the client?
Because BIG5 is a client-only encoding.
> Why can't you have UTF8 on the server and client?
Sure you can.
> Why can't you have MULE_INTERNAL on the server and client?
I think it should work, although I have no experience with that
encoding.
> Why can't you have UTF8 on the server and SQL_ASCII on the client?
Sure you can, but it doesn't make much sense, because SQL_ASCII is not
really an encoding.
> Since they all support UTF8, why can't we just allow any
> server/client combination?
Because not all encodings can encode all characters. UTF8 doesn't help
that.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew - Supernews | 2005-03-13 13:22:10 | Re: Bumping libpq version number? |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-03-13 09:06:22 | Re: REL8_0_STABLE and 8.0.1 release client logging difference |