| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIN1252 patch broke my database |
| Date: | 2005-03-18 16:21:13 |
| Message-ID: | 8352.1111162873@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Am Donnerstag, 17. Mrz 2005 19:23 schrieb Tom Lane:
>> It doesn't eliminate the need for initdb, because pg_conversion contains
>> instances of the client-only encoding numbers. I think that clients
>> know the client-only encoding numbers too, so I'm not sure we aren't
>> stuck with a compatibility issue.
> I think the problem case was old pg_dump versions saving the encoding number
> rather than name. I don't recall any problems with renumbering the client
> encodings. I believe that we in fact did that in 8.0.
As long as client code only uses the names, I suppose we are OK. I'm a
bit worried about that assumption though, since it's not like the
numbers aren't exposed to view in pg_database and pg_conversion ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-03-18 18:01:28 | Re: "they only drink coffee at dec" |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2005-03-18 16:07:13 | Re: WIN1252 patch broke my database |