Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: PostgreSQL+ Beta bug?

From: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Bo?ena Potempa <Bozena(dot)Potempa(at)otc(dot)pl>
Cc: pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL+ Beta bug?
Date: 2002-11-20 00:02:57
Message-ID: 3DDAD131.95497251@tpf.co.jp (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-odbc
Bo?ena Potempa wrote:
> 
> [..]
> >Hmm the difference may come from (non-)multibyte mode.
> 
> I don't think so. My PostgreSQL on Linux installation is standard,
> without support for multibyte characters, without support for
> any national characterset and sorting. Just installed
> 'as is' on the fresh RedHat 7.3.

Isn't your PostgreSQL on Windows NT with multibyte suppoort ?
My environment is with multibyte support and so it doesn't
support non-null-terminated string.
 
> >> Now I am not sure which behaviour is correct (and planned
> >> by PostgreSQL developers).
> >
> >As far as I see PostgreSQL couldn't handle non-null-terminated
> >strings correctly.
> 
> OK. But I think, that even if some earlier versions of PostgreSQL
> do not support 0s in strings then later versions will support them.
> So ODBC driver should not cut strings containing zeroes, but

According to an ODBC related document, the behavior of ODBC
functions in such case is undefined and it is driver-specific
if a driver handles this correctly.
  
> insert/read data entirely making usage of provided length.
> Is it implemented like that?

No and how can I implement it ?
Must I convert '\0' to "|| chr(0) ||" where there's no
guarantee that it works ? 
 
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
	http://w2422.nsk.ne.jp/~inoue/

In response to

Responses

pgsql-odbc by date

Next:From: Schnetzer, JerryDate: 2002-11-20 01:32:38
Subject: Duplicate Table Names in PostgreSQL
Previous:From: Bo?ena PotempaDate: 2002-11-19 16:15:52
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL+ Beta bug?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group