Itagaki Takahiro <[email protected]> writes:
>> Oh, I wasn't aware that Itagaki-san had objected to Tom's proposal.
> I agree that "the default encoding is UTF-8", but it should be
> configurable by the 'encoding' parameter in control files.
Why is it necessary to have such a parameter at all? AFAICS it just
adds complexity for little if any gain. Most extension files will
probably be pure ASCII anyway. Dictionary files are *far* more likely
to contain non-ASCII characters. If we've gotten along fine with
requiring dictionary files to be UTF8, I can't see any reason why we
can't or shouldn't take the same approach to extension files.
> So, I think no additional complexity will be added even if we
> support a configurable encoding as the third encoding.
This is nonsense. The mere existence of the parameter requires code
to support it and user documentation to explain it.
regards, tom lane
