On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 09:13 +0200, Paul J Stevens wrote: > Aaron Stone wrote: > > We issue only a "SET NAMES 'encoding'" without the COLLATION argument, > > so at the moment we fall onto whatever default the database has, but... > > > > Unless Paul changed any queries with the major utf8 cleanup today, the > > database collation doesn't matter because we don't ask the database to > > do any sorting on utf8 columns; all of the sorting takes place on the > > DBMail side in concert with GMime. > > No queries were changed. The cleanup wasn't that major actually. But the > collation does matter because in the IMAP SORT code we do rely on the database > for collation and sorting. It seems to me that's a good thing actually, > because > it allows us to let the database handle this issue. > > We should probably change the table definitions to use UTF8 encoding and > utf8_unicode_ci. DBAs can ofcourse change collation per table or per column as > desired. Dbmail doesn't really care at the moment.
Oh, I didn't see any such queries. But then perhaps it does make sense to add a collation value to dbmail.conf so that we can send "set names 'utf8' collation 'utf8_whatever'" at connection time. Aaron _______________________________________________ DBmail mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
