Hi, Roman!

> > His final comment was:
>
> I do not agree with his comment. He suggests to use either database or

> column encoding when reading the content of the BLOB field. I believe
> that the client encoding should be used (not the JVM encoding as it is

> now) and server must convert the text blobs (sub_type 1) into this
> encoding. If server does not do this, this is a bug and must be fixed.

No way server can change the encoding of BLOBs with existing INTL
interface.
I'm working to fix it - you may have noticed drafts of new INTL
interface floating around, but I would not expect to get it to work very
soon.

But your reasononing is sound, especially in light of fact that metadata
BLOBs are marked as UNICODE_FSS, but store data in client character set.

> Roman

Nickolay