On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, elein wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 12:48:51PM +1100, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 cbbrowne at ca.afilias.info wrote:
> >
> > > > Whatever default is, manual override possibility is what I suggested. Do
> > > > you agree it should be configurable on the node level, not as slon cmd
> > > > line option?
> > >
> > > I'm not certain what the right answer to that is.  (I don't have call to
> > > use these encodings, so I haven't got the experience to have a meaningful
> > > preference...)
> >
> > I think that this is only an issue when the upstream database is
> > SQL_ASCII, MULE_INTERNAL or another encoding which accepts any character
> > sequence as valid. If the upstream is LATIN1 and the downstream is UTF8,
> > then PostgreSQL can be made to do the translation for us. If we don't
> > translate the characters, we wont even be able to insert the data into the
> > downstream database. So, I guess the issue is only about handling
> > SQL_ASCII et al.
> >
>
> Please pardon my ignorance, but what the heck is MULE_INTERNAL?
>

It's a character encoding used by Emacs. Those guys just *have* to be
different... ;-)

Thanks,

Gavin