Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 12:00:32PM +0100, Andreas Pflug wrote:
> 
>>IMHO slony should behave as a unicode application, i.e. use UTF8 client 
>>encoding for all database connections. This will have pgsql apply 
>>conversions transparently, because most server encodings can convert 
>>happily from and to UTF8.
> 
> 
> This seems like an unreasonable imposition on people who aren't
> using UTF8.  What if the application can't speak UTF8, but needs
> multibyte?  That's a serious issue in parts of Japan, where there are
> some rather fraught politics around Unicode.

I don't quite understand the issue. AFAIR all Japanese encodings will 
happily translate from and to Unicode. pgAdmin never received complaints 
about this, I'm sure at least Hiroshi Saito would have rised his voice.

But in any case, this only touches automatic determination of client 
encodings in slon. If slon is used to copy between databases that aren't 
configured correctly, any automatism must fail, and only a manual 
selection of client encodings would help. sl_node.no_encoding would 
solve this.

Regards,
Andreas