>>> Why not make the DEFAULT CHARACTER SET clause required? So everybody >>> who creates a database *must* define one and make sure it's the right >>> one.
>> Yes, this is also an option. Maybe even the easiest one. > Sure, although it's going to break an unknown number of user scripts. > From another side, those using NONE as default charset might deserve > that ;-) That's the idea ;-) But we are speaking about Firebird 3 here, which will probably also break other things. > But if we'd go this route, one more idea comes to mind. What about > prohibiting NONE as a default database charset at all, even if specified > explicitly? I wouldn't support this. When someone wants to use NONE, he may do so. But when he has to specify that *explicitly*, he (hopefully) knows what he's doing. It's different from specifying nothing and then getting NONE or some other CS that is specified in firebird.conf (where only the server administrator can look it up ...). > Shouldn't it be coupled with prohibiting declaration of charset for > single fields? Currently nothing prevent (me) from creating database > with default charset NONE and set charset for every character field > in every table. We are talking about the *default* character set here. Being able to specify different character sets for every field is one of Firebird's strengths (even though I admittedly didn't use it so far ...). Stefan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
