Re: WIN1252 patch broke my database

Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > You shouldn't insert encodings in the middle, because those numbers are 
> > exposed to clients.  We've had troubles with that before.  If you add 
> > an encoding, append it as the last one (before the client encodings in 
> > this case).  This would probably also eliminate the need for the 
> > initdb.
> 
> It doesn't eliminate the need for initdb, because pg_conversion contains
> instances of the client-only encoding numbers.  I think that clients
> know the client-only encoding numbers too, so I'm not sure we aren't
> stuck with a compatibility issue.
> 
> Perhaps, as long as we are forced to renumber, we should reassign the
> client-only encodings to higher numbers (starting at 100, perhaps)
> so that there will be daylight to avoid this issue in the future.
> This would cost some wasted space in the tables, I think, but that
> could be worked around if it's large enough to be annoying.

What should I do with the CVS code now?  Why is adding a gap between
client/server and client-only encodings in pg_wchar.h going to waste
space?

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073