Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > Why is it necessary to have such a parameter at all? AFAICS it just > adds complexity for little if any gain. Most extension files will > probably be pure ASCII anyway. Dictionary files are *far* more likely > to contain non-ASCII characters. If we've gotten along fine with > requiring dictionary files to be UTF8, I can't see any reason why we > can't or shouldn't take the same approach to extension files.
Don't forget that extensions are not just contrib or third party Open Source software, but a lot of in-house code, mostly functions written in SQL and PLpgSQL. In non-English speaking countries, the parameter names and comments are typically not written in English. When we're talking Japan they have some quite specifics needs and I came to understand that the database encoding and the script encoding are not to be the same, usually. So I still vote for handling this parameter. >> So, I think no additional complexity will be added even if we >> support a configurable encoding as the third encoding. > > This is nonsense. The mere existence of the parameter requires code > to support it and user documentation to explain it. The whole documentation needs to be: <varlistentry> <term><replaceable class="parameter">encoding</replaceable></term> <listitem> <para> The <literal>encoding</literal> in which the script file is read. </para> </listitem> </varlistentry> The code to support that is on the order of 25 lines of code, once we get rid of the SQL command level support for it. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers