| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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? |