Re: Questionabl description in datatype.sgml

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 07:27:24AM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 11:58:58AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > Uh, I think Unicode is a character set, and UTF8 is an encoding. I
> > think Tatsuo is right here.
>
> Yes, a character set is different from an encoding. I though it's a
> common understanding among people.

Fixed with the attached applied patch.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +