On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Joachim Wieland <j...@mcknight.de> wrote: >>> - do we need to limit the payload to pure ASCII ? I think yes, we need >>> to. I also think we need to reject other payloads with elog(ERROR...). > >> Just noticed this...don't you mean UTF8? Are we going to force non >> English speaking users to send all payloads in English? > > No, he meant ASCII. Otherwise we're going to have to deal with encoding > conversion issues.
That seems pretty awkward...instead of forcing an ancient, useless to 90% of the world encoding, why not send bytea (if necessary hex/b64 encoded)? I'm just trying to imagine how databases encoded in non ascii superset encodings would use this feature... If we must use ascii, we should probably offer conversion functions to/from text, right? I definitely understand the principle of the utility of laziness, but is this a proper case of simply dumping the problem onto the user? merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
