Re: Extensions, patch v18 (merge against master, bitrot-only-fixes)

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
> <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
>>>> Please note that the SQL scripts seem to be encoded in latin9.

>>> Seems like an odd choice. Why not UTF-8?

>> Not a choice, just what's already in

> Sure, I get it. I'm guessing that many of the scripts will work in a
> wide variety of encodings because they're a subset of ASCII. Should
> we think about converting the others to UTF-8, or is that a bad idea?

I would think that we want to establish the same policy as we have for
dictionary files: they're assumed to be UTF-8. I don't believe there
should be an encoding option at all. If we didn't need one for
dictionary files, there is *surely* no reason why we have to have one
for extension SQL files.

regards, tom lane