Re: Shouldn't non-MULTIBYTE backend refuse to start in MB database?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Shouldn't non-MULTIBYTE backend refuse to start in MB database?
Date: 2001-02-14 23:15:04
Message-ID: 28146.982192504@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:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> We now have defenses against running a non-LOCALE-enabled backend in a
>> database that was created in non-C locale. Shouldn't we likewise
>> prevent a non-MULTIBYTE-enabled backend from running in a database with
>> a multibyte encoding that's not SQL_ASCII? Or am I missing a reason why
>> that is safe?

> Not all multibyte encodings are actually "multi"-byte, e.g., LATIN2. In
> that case the main benefit is the on-the-fly recoding between the client
> and the server. If a non-MB server encounters that database it should
> still work.

Are these encodings all guaranteed to have the same collation order as
SQL_ASCII? If not, we have the same index corruption issues as for LOCALE.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Brook Milligan 2001-02-14 23:18:57 undocumented parts of SPI
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2001-02-14 23:11:44 Re: Shouldn't non-MULTIBYTE backend refuse to start in MB database?