On Wednesday 11 February 2009 18:00:31 Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@xxxxxxx> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Reflecting on the bigger picture ... I would imagine that the vast > >> majority of existing applications depend on client_encoding settings > >> that come from postgresql.conf, ALTER USER SET, ALTER DATABASE SET, or > >> just the default (== database encoding). I don't think a solution that > >> penalizes those cases and makes only the case of setting it via > >> PGCLIENTENCODING work nicely is going to make very many people happy. > > > > I don't have any survey data available, but I think this assessment is > > semantically wrong. Usefully, the client encoding can come only from > > the client, or be defaulted (and even that is semantically wrong). > > In an ideal world, perhaps so, but do you deny my point that that's not > reality? I have never seen a setup where the client encoding did not come from the default or the client (and the person who set it up knew what they were doing). I don't think the other cases are worth optimizing. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
