On 28 Feb 2005 at 10:38, Jim Starkey wrote:

>I'm inclined to agree with Olivier and add the remote protocol (at
>least the new one) to the list of places it should be used.
>
>What do people think about moving code transformations from the server
>to the client?

On the one hand it is good: Clent can use system functions for
characters transformation and this way server and client became
smaller.
On the other hand it at least double network traffic for any non-
ASCII charset (that have a native one-byte presentation).

For example: if we work with russian characters (set up lc_ctype to
win1251 for connection) and transform them from unicode to win1251
(KOI-8R, dos866 or any other russian charset) on client, every
character is send over wire in UTF-8 and has size two butes. If we
transform it on server and send it as win1251, every character has
size one byte.

I'd vote for server-side transliteration.
--
SY, Dimitry Sibiryakov.