|
From: Rustam G. <fir...@ma...> - 2009-11-09 16:28:37
|
Alexander Peshkoff >> > I don't think that *any* default processing can be good enough. The >> > engine doesn't know for sure what charset was used to store data or >> > metadata. We can look at the database charset and even suppose that >> > attachment charsets were the same, but anyway it's just a guess with >> > accuracy less than 100%. I strongly believe that guessing is not what >> > the engine should do. >> > >> > The metadata upgrade scripts in v2.1 are documented, the same is true >> > for the new restore switches in v2.5. We already had quite a few support >> > questions about the <subject> error and asked them to pay more attention >> > to the release notes. Nobody was blaming the server for being broken. >> >> Totally agree. >> >> > That said, I believe it would be more user friendly to catch this error >> > in GBAK during restore and write out a more detailed message, e.g.: >> > "unsupported sequence of characters. please retry with a -fix_fss_* >> > switch". >> >> This is very good thing to have. > > +1 on both points. Seconded. |