Thread: Question about encoding combinations
I have updated the documentation on encodings to more closely match our code, added descriptions, and a list of aliases for encodings. I also reorderd the lists to they were alphabetical. Look here to see the results: http://candle.pha.pa.us/main/writings/pgsql/sgml/multibyte.html Comments? I have some questions about the second table: Why is BIG5 listed as not allowing UTF8 on the client, but you can have UTF8 on the server and BIG5 on the client? Why can't you have UTF8 on the server and client? Why can't you have MULE_INTERNAL on the server and client? Why can't you have UTF8 on the server and SQL_ASCII on the client? Since they all support UTF8, why can't we just allow any server/client combination? Is the problem with unicode ordering? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Why is BIG5 listed as not allowing UTF8 on the client, but you can > have UTF8 on the server and BIG5 on the client? Because BIG5 is a client-only encoding. > Why can't you have UTF8 on the server and client? Sure you can. > Why can't you have MULE_INTERNAL on the server and client? I think it should work, although I have no experience with that encoding. > Why can't you have UTF8 on the server and SQL_ASCII on the client? Sure you can, but it doesn't make much sense, because SQL_ASCII is not really an encoding. > Since they all support UTF8, why can't we just allow any > server/client combination? Because not all encodings can encode all characters. UTF8 doesn't help that. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/