On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I wasn't aware that JDBC would fail on that. It's pretty annoying that
>>> it does, but maybe we should grin and bear it, ie revert the change to
>>> canonicalize the GUC's value?
>
>> Older drivers will fail for sure. We can fix newer drivers, but if we
>> leave it we will see a slew of bug reports.
>
> Yeah. I'm thinking what we should do here is revert the change, with a
> note in the source about why, and also change the JDBC driver to send
> and expect "UTF8" not "UNICODE" (which as Kevin says is more correct
> anyway). Then in a few releases' time we can un-revert the server
> change.
>
Well initially my concern was that people would have a challenge in
the case where they had to re-certify their application if we made
this change, however I realize they will have to do this anyway since
upgrading to 9.1 is what necessitates it.
So I'm less concerned with bug reports since people can just upgrade both
Dave Cramer
dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca
http://www.credativ.ca
