On 12/7/13 7:50 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
On 12/07/2013 05:41 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
>
>On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Michael Paquier
><michael.paqu...@gmail.com <mailto:michael.paqu...@gmail.com>>
>wrote:
>>>
>>>IMHO is more elegant create a procedure to encapsulate the code
>>>to avoid redundancy.
>>Yep, perhaps something like PQsetClientEncodingIfDifferent or
>>similar would make sense.
>
>Well I think at this first moment we can just create a procedure
>inside the dblink contrib and not touch in libpq.
Maybe a libpq function could be done for 9.4, but not for back branches.
Stupid question... why don't we just pass encoding in with the other connection
parameters? That eliminates any ambiguity. The only issue would be if the user
also passed that in via connstr... though now that I think about it, we
currently silently ignore that parameter, which IMHO is bad. We should either
respect if the user passes that in (ie: not do anything at all), or we should
throw an error.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect j...@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
