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.paquier@gmail.com <mailto:michael.paquier@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
currentlysilently ignore that parameter, which IMHO is bad. We should either respect if the user passes that in (ie:
notdo anything at all), or we should throw an error.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect jim@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
