On Feb 14, 2005, at 9:27 PM, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
It's not the documentation that is wrong. Specifying the database "encoding" as "Unicode" is simply a bug (see initdb). What if postgresql supports UTF-16 in the future? What would you call it?
I know UTF8 is a type of unicode but do we need to rename anything from Unicode to UTF8?
I don't know. I'll go through the documentation to see if I can find anything that needs changing.
Also, the backend protocol also uses "UNICODE" when specifying the encoding. All the other encoding names are specified correctly AFAICS.
I brought this up before: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-10/msg00811.php
We could make UTF8 the canonical form in the aliasing mechanism, but beta 4 is a bit late to come up with this kind of idea. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
