This is a discussion on WIN1252 patch broke my database within the pgsql Hackers forums, part of the PostgreSQL category; --> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > Am Donnerstag, 17. März 2005 19:23 schrieb Tom Lane: >> It doesn't eliminate the ...
| |||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| ||||
| Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > Am Donnerstag, 17. März 2005 19:23 schrieb Tom Lane: >> 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. > I think the problem case was old pg_dump versions saving the encoding number > rather than name. I don't recall any problems with renumbering the client > encodings. I believe that we in fact did that in 8.0. As long as client code only uses the names, I suppose we are OK. I'm a bit worried about that assumption though, since it's not like the numbers aren't exposed to view in pg_database and pg_conversion ... regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq |