Re: db encoding

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Postgresql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: db encoding
Date: 2003-10-06 18:30:47
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0310062026480.4051-100000@peter.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32

Andrew Dunstan writes:

> Yes, but when I asked that question at least one voice piped up (Debian
> package maintainer, I think) to say that these were still needed as
> standalone programs. However, I have already replaced the calls I
> previously had to these from the C version (pg_id a few days ago,
> pg_encoding a few minutes ago ;-) )

There is no reason to keep pg_id, because the only reason it exists is
that the standard 'id' program does not behave sanely on some platforms.
pg_id is in fact a near-copy of a subset of an existing 'id'
implementation.

About pg_encoding. There is currently no way to tell whether an encoding
exists. Normally you would put this kind of thing into a system table,
but doing that is a bit tricky with the encodings. I would like to see
pg_encoding go, so let's hear what information people need and give them a
direct way to access it.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-10-06 18:34:44 Re: Oracle/PostgreSQL incompatibilities
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2003-10-06 18:26:24 Re: Open 7.4 items

Browse pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2003-10-06 19:05:53 Re: db encoding
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2003-10-06 18:01:00 Re: db encoding