Re: [HACKERS] JDBC connections to 9.1

Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I wasn't aware that JDBC would fail on that. �It's pretty annoying that
>> it does, but maybe we should grin and bear it, ie revert the change to
>> canonicalize the GUC's value?

> Older drivers will fail for sure. We can fix newer drivers, but if we
> leave it we will see a slew of bug reports.

Yeah.  I'm thinking what we should do here is revert the change, with a
note in the source about why, and also change the JDBC driver to send
and expect "UTF8" not "UNICODE" (which as Kevin says is more correct
anyway).  Then in a few releases' time we can un-revert the server
change.

            regards, tom lane