Re: WIN1252 patch broke my database

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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