Kris Jurka writes:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011, Tom Lane wrote:
>> For purposes of the notes in the server-side fix, could you state which
>> JDBC driver versions these changes will first appear in?
> This is in 9.1dev-900 and won't be backpatched.
OK, thanks. I've committed a patch to keep the serve
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011, Tom Lane wrote:
Kris Jurka writes:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011, Mike Fowler wrote:
As there seems to be a consensus forming for fixing the JDBC driver, I've
taken the liberty do so at the risk of being shot down. The patch is fairly
straightforward, just changing UNICODE to UTF
Kris Jurka writes:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011, Mike Fowler wrote:
>> As there seems to be a consensus forming for fixing the JDBC driver, I've
>> taken the liberty do so at the risk of being shot down. The patch is fairly
>> straightforward, just changing UNICODE to UTF8 in a number of files
>> incl
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011, Mike Fowler wrote:
On 18/04/11 17:12, Tom Lane wrote:
Dave Cramer writes:
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 anyw
On 18/04/11 17:12, Tom Lane wrote:
Dave Cramer writes:
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 necessitat
On 18/04/11 17:35, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 04/18/2011 11:25 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
What concerns me most is that (assuming my dates are right) the
JDBC driver has been
broken for 11 days and no one noticed. This would lead me to believe
that there is no JDBC build server. What would it take
On 04/18/2011 11:25 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
What concerns me most is that (assuming my dates are right) the JDBC driver
has been
broken for 11 days and no one noticed. This would lead me to believe
that there is no JDBC build server. What would it take to set one up?
+1 for doing something alo
Dave Cramer writes:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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
>> an
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Cramer writes:
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Tom Lane 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
Mike Fowler writes:
> On 18/04/11 15:57, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I am --- when I redid the GUC assign_hook logic a few weeks ago,
>> I changed the client_encoding code so that it shows the normalized
>> (official) name of the encoding, not whatever random string the client
>> sent over. For instance,
Dave Cramer writes:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Tom Lane 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
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Mike Fowler wrote:
> On 18/04/11 15:57, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Bernd Helmle writes:
>>>
>>> If i am reading it correct, it reads "UTF8" from the backend, while
>>> expecting "UNICODE" only. Not sure what change has caused this,
>>> though.
>>
>> I am --- when I re
On 18/04/11 15:57, Tom Lane wrote:
Bernd Helmle writes:
If i am reading it correct, it reads "UTF8" from the backend, while
expecting "UNICODE" only. Not sure what change has caused this,
though.
I am --- when I redid the GUC assign_hook logic a few weeks ago,
I changed the client_encoding cod
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bernd Helmle writes:
>> If i am reading it correct, it reads "UTF8" from the backend, while
>> expecting "UNICODE" only. Not sure what change has caused this,
>> though.
>
> I am --- when I redid the GUC assign_hook logic a few weeks ago,
> I ch
14 matches
Mail list logo
