Re: db encoding - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: db encoding
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.44.0310062026480.4051-100000@peter.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: db encoding  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Responses Re: db encoding  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Re: db encoding  (Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan writes:

> Yes, but when I asked that question at least one voice piped up (Debian
> package maintainer, I think) to say that these were still needed as
> standalone programs. However, I have already replaced the calls I
> previously had to these from the C version (pg_id a few days ago,
> pg_encoding a few minutes ago ;-) )

There is no reason to keep pg_id, because the only reason it exists is
that the standard 'id' program does not behave sanely on some platforms.
pg_id is in fact a near-copy of a subset of an existing 'id'
implementation.

About pg_encoding.  There is currently no way to tell whether an encoding
exists.  Normally you would put this kind of thing into a system table,
but doing that is a bit tricky with the encodings.  I would like to see
pg_encoding go, so let's hear what information people need and give them a
direct way to access it.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Open 7.4 items
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Oracle/PostgreSQL incompatibilities