On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 23:51 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > I do not object the changing UNICODE->UTF-8, but all these discussions
> > sound a little bit funny to me.
> >
> > If you want to blame UNICODE, you should blame LATIN1 etc. as
> > well. LATIN1(ISO-8859-1) is actually a character set name, not an
> > encoding name. ISO-8859-1 can be encoded in 8-bit single byte
> > stream. But it can be encoded in 7-bit too. So when we refer to
> > LATIN1(ISO-8859-1), it's not clear if it's encoded in 7/8-bit.
>
> Wow, Tatsuo has a point here. Looking at encnames.c, I see:
>
> "UNICODE", PG_UTF8
>
> but also:
>
> "WIN", PG_WIN1251
> "LATIN1", PG_LATIN1
> so I see what he is saying. We are not consistent in favoring the
> official names vs. the common names.
Yes. I said already. For example "WIN" is extremely bad alias. It all is
heritage from old versions.
> I will work on a patch that people can review and test.
Thanks.
Karel
--
Karel Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
