> Yes, it seems completely bogus. The whole reason for existance of
> client-side encodings is that each client may have its own (and even the
> same client may use several, at least for diffrent connections).
>
> > On the other
> > hand, there's still the point about dumping a file one way and loading
> > it back the other. Also, it's probably unwise to change this behavior
> > without a really good argument for doing so, since (AFAIR) we've not
> > had bug reports about it.
>
> It works both ways, i.e. the lack of bug reports may also suggest that
> nobody is doing it (copy file to server, then load the same file from
> client)
>
> > Comments anyone?
Perhaps we should just have a flag in the COPY grammar 'WITH/OUT CONVERSION'
that specifies that an encoding is required...
Chris
