Tom Lane said:
> "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>> Tom Lane said:
>>> What does it mean to have different "default" encoding conversions in
>>> different schemas? Even if this had a sensible interpretation, I
>>> don't think the existing code implements it properly.
>
>> perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but why not just resolve the namespace
>> at the time the default conversion is created?
>
> Isn't that the same thing as saying that there can only be one default
> conversion across all schemas? ("Only one" for a given source and
> target encoding pair, of course.) If it isn't the same, please explain
> more clearly.
>
>
Yeah, I guess it is. I was thinking of it more as "namespace-specified" than
as "non-namespace-aware". I guess it's a matter of perspective.
cheers
andrew