>> On 9 Jan 2024, at 00:54, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>>
On 4 Jan 2024, at 13:39, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>>>
> Attached is the patch that does this.
>>>
>>> I don't think the patch was attached?
>>>
Any objection?
>>>
>>> I didn't study the RFC in depth but as expected it seems to back
> On 9 Jan 2024, at 00:54, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>
>>> On 4 Jan 2024, at 13:39, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>>
Attached is the patch that does this.
>>
>> I don't think the patch was attached?
>>
>>> Any objection?
>>
>> I didn't study the RFC in depth but as expected it seems to back up your
>>
>> On 4 Jan 2024, at 13:39, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>
>>> Attached is the patch that does this.
>
> I don't think the patch was attached?
>
>> Any objection?
>
> I didn't study the RFC in depth but as expected it seems to back up your
> change
> so the change seems reasonable.
Oops. Sorry. Patch
> On 4 Jan 2024, at 13:39, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> Attached is the patch that does this.
I don't think the patch was attached?
> Any objection?
I didn't study the RFC in depth but as expected it seems to back up your change
so the change seems reasonable.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
(typo in the subject fixed)
> In the following paragraph in information_schema:
>
> character encoding form
>
>
>An encoding of some character repertoire. Most older character
>repertoires only use one encoding form, and so there are no
>separate names for t
