Thread: pg_client_encoding
Hi, I'm going to add a new function "pg_client_encoding" returning the current client side encoding name. I know there is a similar functionality already there in PostgreSQL (show client_encoding) but it's pain to handle notice message by a program. Also note that JDBC driver and maybe some other APIs use getdatabaseencoding, but I think it's not adequate for FE APIs to know actual encoding passed to FE side, since an encoding conversion might be made in BE side. For example, if PGCLIENTENCODING is set to SJIS before starting postmaster, the actual encoding passed to FE would be SJIS even the database encoding is EUC_JP. Comments? -- Tatsuo Ishii
On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 01:46:28PM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm going to add a new function "pg_client_encoding" returning the
> current client side encoding name. I know there is a similar
> functionality already there in PostgreSQL (show client_encoding) but
> it's pain to handle notice message by a program.
>
> Also note that JDBC driver and maybe some other APIs use
> getdatabaseencoding, but I think it's not adequate for FE APIs to know
> actual encoding passed to FE side, since an encoding conversion might
> be made in BE side. For example, if PGCLIENTENCODING is set to SJIS
> before starting postmaster, the actual encoding passed to FE would be
> SJIS even the database encoding is EUC_JP.
>
> Comments?
What some common function like pg_show():
SELECT pg_show('CLIENT_ENCODING');SELECT pg_show('SERVER_ENCODING');SELECT pg_show('DATESTYLE');
that returns same result as standard 'SHOW' command, but not as NOTICE?
A lot of code for this function can be shared with current SHOW routines.
I'm sure non-libpq clients (like JDBC) maintainers will happy with it.
Karel
-- Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz>http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr/C, PostgreSQL, PHP, WWW, http://docs.linux.cz,
http://mape.jcu.cz
> Tatsuo, > > Did you ever commit this new function? I just tried a 'select > pg_client_encoding()' and it told me that there was no such function. > This was on sources that I pulled and built two days ago. > > I was planning on changing the JDBC code to use this function instead of > getdatabaseencoding(). Sorry for the delay. I have just added pg_client_encoding() which returns client side encoding name. > Also, what names will this new function return (the old character set > names like getdatabaseencoding still does, or the new names)? The "old" ones. To make sure, here are the encoding names list currently supported. encoding what pg_client_encoding/ alias getdatabaseencoding returns ---------------------------------------------------------------- ASCII SQL_ASCII UTF-8 UNICODE UTF_8 MULE-INTERNAL MULE_INTERNAL ISO-8859-1 LATIN1 ISO_8859_1 ISO-8859-2 LATIN2 ISO_8859_2 ISO-8859-3 LATIN3 ISO_8859_3 ISO-8859-4 LATIN4 ISO_8859_4 ISO-8859-5 ISO_8859_5 ISO-8859-6 ISO_8859_6 ISO-8859-7 ISO_8859_7 ISO-8859-8 ISO_8859_8 ISO-8859-9 LATIN5 ISO_8859_9 ISO-8859-10 ISO_8859_10 LATIN6 ISO-8859-13 ISO_8859_13 LATIN7 ISO-8859-14 ISO_8859_14 LATIN8 ISO-8859-15 ISO_8859_15 LATIN9 ISO-8859-16 ISO_8859_16 EUC-JP EUC_JP EUC-CN EUC_CN EUC-KR EUC_KR EUC-TW EUC_TW Shift_JIS SJIS SHIFT_JIS Big5 BIG5 Windows1250 WIN1250 Windows1251 WIN KOI8-R KOI8 KOI8R IBM866 ALT > thanks, > --Barry > > > > Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I'm going to add a new function "pg_client_encoding" returning the > > current client side encoding name. I know there is a similar > > functionality already there in PostgreSQL (show client_encoding) but > > it's pain to handle notice message by a program. > > > > Also note that JDBC driver and maybe some other APIs use > > getdatabaseencoding, but I think it's not adequate for FE APIs to know > > actual encoding passed to FE side, since an encoding conversion might > > be made in BE side. For example, if PGCLIENTENCODING is set to SJIS > > before starting postmaster, the actual encoding passed to FE would be > > SJIS even the database encoding is EUC_JP. > > > > Comments? > > -- > > Tatsuo Ishii > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > > > > > >
Tatsuo Ishii writes: > encoding what pg_client_encoding/ alias > getdatabaseencoding > returns > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ASCII SQL_ASCII > UTF-8 UNICODE UTF_8 > MULE-INTERNAL MULE_INTERNAL > ISO-8859-1 LATIN1 ISO_8859_1 > ISO-8859-2 LATIN2 ISO_8859_2 > ISO-8859-3 LATIN3 ISO_8859_3 > ISO-8859-4 LATIN4 ISO_8859_4 > ISO-8859-5 ISO_8859_5 > ISO-8859-6 ISO_8859_6 > ISO-8859-7 ISO_8859_7 > ISO-8859-8 ISO_8859_8 > ISO-8859-9 LATIN5 ISO_8859_9 > ISO-8859-10 ISO_8859_10 LATIN6 > ISO-8859-13 ISO_8859_13 LATIN7 > ISO-8859-14 ISO_8859_14 LATIN8 > ISO-8859-15 ISO_8859_15 LATIN9 > ISO-8859-16 ISO_8859_16 Why aren't you using LATINx for (some of) these as well? -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter
> > ASCII SQL_ASCII > > UTF-8 UNICODE UTF_8 > > MULE-INTERNAL MULE_INTERNAL > > ISO-8859-1 LATIN1 ISO_8859_1 > > ISO-8859-2 LATIN2 ISO_8859_2 > > ISO-8859-3 LATIN3 ISO_8859_3 > > ISO-8859-4 LATIN4 ISO_8859_4 > > ISO-8859-5 ISO_8859_5 > > ISO-8859-6 ISO_8859_6 > > ISO-8859-7 ISO_8859_7 > > ISO-8859-8 ISO_8859_8 > > ISO-8859-9 LATIN5 ISO_8859_9 > > ISO-8859-10 ISO_8859_10 LATIN6 > > ISO-8859-13 ISO_8859_13 LATIN7 > > ISO-8859-14 ISO_8859_14 LATIN8 > > ISO-8859-15 ISO_8859_15 LATIN9 > > ISO-8859-16 ISO_8859_16 > > Why aren't you using LATINx for (some of) these as well? If LATIN6 to 9 are well defined in the SQL or some other standards, I would not object using them. I just don't have enough confidence. For ISO-8859-5 to 8, and 16, I don't see well defined standards. -- Tatsuo Ishii
* Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp> [011014 16:05]: > > > ASCII SQL_ASCII > > > UTF-8 UNICODE UTF_8 > > > MULE-INTERNAL MULE_INTERNAL > > > ISO-8859-1 LATIN1 ISO_8859_1 > > > ISO-8859-2 LATIN2 ISO_8859_2 > > > ISO-8859-3 LATIN3 ISO_8859_3 > > > ISO-8859-4 LATIN4 ISO_8859_4 > > > ISO-8859-5 ISO_8859_5 > > > ISO-8859-6 ISO_8859_6 > > > ISO-8859-7 ISO_8859_7 > > > ISO-8859-8 ISO_8859_8 > > > ISO-8859-9 LATIN5 ISO_8859_9 > > > ISO-8859-10 ISO_8859_10 LATIN6 > > > ISO-8859-13 ISO_8859_13 LATIN7 > > > ISO-8859-14 ISO_8859_14 LATIN8 > > > ISO-8859-15 ISO_8859_15 LATIN9 > > > ISO-8859-16 ISO_8859_16 > > > > Why aren't you using LATINx for (some of) these as well? > > If LATIN6 to 9 are well defined in the SQL or some other standards, I > would not object using them. I just don't have enough confidence. > For ISO-8859-5 to 8, and 16, I don't see well defined standards. ISO-8859-16 *is* LATIN10, I just don't have the reference to prove it (I can look for it, if you want to). ISO-8859-5 to 8 aren't latin scripts. From memory, 5 is cyrillic, 6 is arabic, 7 is greek, 8 is ??? (hebrew ?)... So it would make sense to add LATIN10, still :) Patrice -- Patrice Hédé email: patrice hede à islande org www : http://www.islande.org/
> * Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp> [011014 16:05]: > > > > ASCII SQL_ASCII > > > > UTF-8 UNICODE UTF_8 > > > > MULE-INTERNAL MULE_INTERNAL > > > > ISO-8859-1 LATIN1 ISO_8859_1 > > > > ISO-8859-2 LATIN2 ISO_8859_2 > > > > ISO-8859-3 LATIN3 ISO_8859_3 > > > > ISO-8859-4 LATIN4 ISO_8859_4 > > > > ISO-8859-5 ISO_8859_5 > > > > ISO-8859-6 ISO_8859_6 > > > > ISO-8859-7 ISO_8859_7 > > > > ISO-8859-8 ISO_8859_8 > > > > ISO-8859-9 LATIN5 ISO_8859_9 > > > > ISO-8859-10 ISO_8859_10 LATIN6 > > > > ISO-8859-13 ISO_8859_13 LATIN7 > > > > ISO-8859-14 ISO_8859_14 LATIN8 > > > > ISO-8859-15 ISO_8859_15 LATIN9 > > > > ISO-8859-16 ISO_8859_16 > > > > > > Why aren't you using LATINx for (some of) these as well? > > > > If LATIN6 to 9 are well defined in the SQL or some other standards, I > > would not object using them. I just don't have enough confidence. > > For ISO-8859-5 to 8, and 16, I don't see well defined standards. > > ISO-8859-16 *is* LATIN10, I just don't have the reference to prove it > (I can look for it, if you want to). > > ISO-8859-5 to 8 aren't latin scripts. From memory, 5 is cyrillic, 6 is > arabic, 7 is greek, 8 is ??? (hebrew ?)... > > So it would make sense to add LATIN10, still :) If you were sure ISO-8859-16 == LATIN10, I could add it. Ok, here is the modified encoding table (column1 is the standard name, 2 is our "official" name, and 3 is alias). If there's no objection, I will change them. ASCII SQL_ASCII UTF-8 UNICODE UTF_8 MULE-INTERNAL MULE_INTERNAL ISO-8859-1 LATIN1 ISO_8859_1 ISO-8859-2 LATIN2 ISO_8859_2 ISO-8859-3 LATIN3 ISO_8859_3 ISO-8859-4 LATIN4 ISO_8859_4 ISO-8859-5 ISO_8859_5 ISO-8859-6 ISO_8859_6 ISO-8859-7 ISO_8859_7 ISO-8859-8 ISO_8859_8 ISO-8859-9 LATIN5 ISO_8859_9 ISO-8859-10 LATIN6 ISO_8859_10 ISO-8859-13 LATIN7 ISO_8859_13 ISO-8859-14 LATIN8 ISO_8859_14 ISO-8859-15 LATIN9 ISO_8859_15 ISO-8859-16 LATIN10 ISO_8859_16
Done. > Ok, here is the modified encoding table (column1 is the standard name, > 2 is our "official" name, and 3 is alias). If there's no objection, I > will change them. > > ASCII SQL_ASCII > UTF-8 UNICODE UTF_8 > MULE-INTERNAL MULE_INTERNAL > ISO-8859-1 LATIN1 ISO_8859_1 > ISO-8859-2 LATIN2 ISO_8859_2 > ISO-8859-3 LATIN3 ISO_8859_3 > ISO-8859-4 LATIN4 ISO_8859_4 > ISO-8859-5 ISO_8859_5 > ISO-8859-6 ISO_8859_6 > ISO-8859-7 ISO_8859_7 > ISO-8859-8 ISO_8859_8 > ISO-8859-9 LATIN5 ISO_8859_9 > ISO-8859-10 LATIN6 ISO_8859_10 > ISO-8859-13 LATIN7 ISO_8859_13 > ISO-8859-14 LATIN8 ISO_8859_14 > ISO-8859-15 LATIN9 ISO_8859_15 > ISO-8859-16 LATIN10 ISO_8859_16