Re: Why are default encoding conversions

> Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> >> I don't mind having encoding conversions be named within schemas,
> >> but I propose that any given encoding pair be allowed to have only
> >> one default conversion, period, and that when we are looking for
> >> a default conversion we find it by a non-namespace-aware search.
>
> > That doesn't sound good idea to me.
>
> 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.
>
> > Then why do we have CREATE DEFAULT CONVERSION command at all?
>
> So you can create the one you're allowed to have, of course ...

If you do allow only one default conversion for encodings A and B
regardless schemas, then how one can have different default conversion
for A and B?

I'm sure we need more than one default conversion for encoding A and
B. For example, different vendors provide different conversion maps
for SJIS and UTF-8. M$ has its own and Apple has another one, etc. The
differences are not huge but some customers might think the difference
is critical. In this case they could create their own conversion in
their schema.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan