| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: default client encoding in postgresql.conf |
| Date: | 2008-06-13 16:15:24 |
| Message-ID: | 12031.1213373724@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Robert Treat wrote:
>>> This conversation is beginning to suggest to me that client_encoding
>>> shouldn't be listed in postgresql.conf at all.
>>
>> Yeah, that sure seems better than what we currently have.
> I should have thought there was a good argument for preventing its being
> set in postgresql.conf.
No, I can think of cases where someone might legitimately want to do
that, they're just pretty far out of mainstream usage.
We already have some variables that are GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE but not
GUC_DISALLOW_IN_FILE, so I don't see anything wrong with considering
client_encoding the same way.
(BTW, sometime we ought to get around to enforcing GUC_DISALLOW_IN_FILE...)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-06-13 16:18:37 | Re: Proposal: Multiversion page api (inplace upgrade) |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2008-06-13 15:54:20 | Re: Overhauling GUCS |