From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SQL_ASCII vs. 7-bit ASCII encodings |
Date: | 2005-05-12 02:55:02 |
Message-ID: | 4282C586.5000404@familyhealth.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I suppose that we can't change the semantics of SQL_ASCII without
> backwards compatibility problems. I wonder if introducing a new encoding
> that only allows 7-bit ascii, and making that the default, is the way to
> go.
A while back I requested a new encoding that is '7BITASCII'. It would
be excellent for those of use who require that the data is ascii, latin1
and utf8.
> This new encoding would be treated like any other normal encoding, i.e.
> setting client_encoding does transcoding (I expect that'd be a 1:1
> mapping in most or all cases) and rejects unmappable characters as soon
> as they're encountered.
Personally, I'd like UTF8 to be the default encoding :) This is the
21st century :D
Chris
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-12 03:34:56 | Re: [HACKERS] plperl and pltcl installcheck targets |
Previous Message | Oliver Jowett | 2005-05-12 02:42:36 | SQL_ASCII vs. 7-bit ASCII encodings |