| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: invalid UTF-8 via pl/perl |
| Date: | 2010-01-03 20:17:11 |
| Message-ID: | 7619.1262549831@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> There are two issues with this patch. First, how far if at all should it
> be backpatched? All the way, or 8.3, where we tightened the encoding
> rules, or not at all?
Forgot to mention --- I'm not in favor of backpatching. First because
tightening encoding verification has been a process over multiple
releases; it's not a bug fix in the normal sense of the word, and might
break things that people had been doing without trouble. Second because
I think we'll have to change pg_verifymbstr's API, and that's not
something to back-patch if we can avoid it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-01-03 20:37:10 | ERROR: record type has not been registered |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-03 20:15:11 | Re: invalid UTF-8 via pl/perl |