| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Questionabl description in datatype.sgml |
| Date: | 2016-06-18 15:58:58 |
| Message-ID: | 13601.1466265538@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> In "8.13.2. Encoding Handling"
> <para>
> When using binary mode to pass query parameters to the server
> and query results back to the client, no character set conversion
> is performed, so the situation is different. In this case, an
> encoding declaration in the XML data will be observed, and if it
> is absent, the data will be assumed to be in UTF-8 (as required by
> the XML standard; note that PostgreSQL does not support UTF-16).
> On output, data will have an encoding declaration
> specifying the client encoding, unless the client encoding is
> UTF-8, in which case it will be omitted.
> </para>
> In the first sentence shouldn't "no character set conversion" be "no
> encoding conversion"? PostgreSQL is doing client/server encoding
> conversion, rather than character set conversion.
I think the text is treating "character set conversion" as meaning
the same thing as "encoding conversion"; certainly I've never seen
any place in our docs that draws a distinction between those terms.
If you think there is a difference, maybe we need to define those
terms somewhere.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-06-18 16:14:17 | Re: Whether to back-patch fix for aggregate transtype width estimates |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-06-18 15:56:51 | Re: forcing a rebuild of the visibility map |