In talking to a colleague of mine yesterday, we got onto the subject of color spaces in digital photography. He's a Nikon buff, I use Canon (specifically, an EOS 50D); I don't know if that is relevant to my question or not, but mention it for completeness.
I shoot RAW essentially 100% of the time, and have the in-camera color space setting at AdobeRGB (sRGB is also offered). The raw converter in turn is set to produce sRGB output files. As I understand the process, the general flow is for raw shooting: raw sensor data readout (including A/D conversion), compression, write to a raw file, then in post-processing rather than in-camera apply color space/color temperature/etc; for JPEG shooting: raw sensor data readout, apply color space/color temperature/etc, JPEG compression, write to memory card (in camera).
Hence, when he said that I should leave the camera set to sRGB for best/consistent results despite using the camera's raw format, it didn't really make much sense to me. I have mulled it over for a while now and it still doesn't really make any sense.
One of the answers to What is RAW, technically? seems to support my view of the differences in the data recorded in RAW and JPEG modes, respectively.
I did find What's the difference between Adobe RGB and sRGB and which should I set in my camera?, but the answers there seem to focus more on the difference between AdobeRGB and sRGB. My question is, when shooting RAW, does it ever matter (except for the image preview) whether the camera is set to sRGB or AdobeRGB? If it does, then why, and in what situations? Is my understanding of the "raw" format processing chain flawed?