Re: Shouldn't non-MULTIBYTE backend refuse to start in MB database?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Shouldn't non-MULTIBYTE backend refuse to start in MB database? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 28146.982192504@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Shouldn't non-MULTIBYTE backend refuse to start in MB database? (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Shouldn't non-MULTIBYTE backend refuse to start in
MB database?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: