Re: [HACKERS] JDBC connections to 9.1

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> I changed the client_encoding code so that it shows the normalized
> (official) name of the encoding, not whatever random string the
> client sent over.  For instance, previous versions:
>
> regression=# set client_encoding = 'UnIcOdE';
> SET

The whole area of character sets and encoding schemes is confusing
enough without accepting a character set name as an encoding scheme
specification.  I'll bet that in five or ten years we'll be
accepting more than one encoding scheme for the Unicode character
set.

> 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?

Can we fix the JDBC driver rather than reverting this?  Long run,
I'd be in favor of just rejecting a character set name as a client
encoding specification.  I think inferring one is being generous.

-Kevin