| From: | Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews(at)supernews(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Differences in UTF8 between 8.0 and 8.1 |
| Date: | 2005-10-27 11:56:02 |
| Message-ID: | slrndm1g2i.g61.andrew+nonews@trinity.supernews.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2005-10-27, Paul Lindner <lindner(at)inuus(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 05:07:40AM -0000, Andrew - Supernews wrote:
>> I'm inclined to suspect that the whole sequence c1 f9 d4 c2 d0 c7 d2 b9
>> was never actually a valid utf-8 string, and that the d2 b9 is only valid
>> by coincidence (it's a Cyrillic letter from Azerbaijani). I know the 8.0
>> utf-8 check was broken, but I didn't realize it was quite so bad.
>
> Looking at the data it appears that it is a sequence of latin1
> characters. They all have the eighth bit set and all seem to pass the
> check.
In latin1 it comes out as total gibberish, so I think you'll find it is
actually in something else. Some googling suggests it is most likely in a
Chinese double-byte charset (GB2312).
--
Andrew, Supernews
http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-10-27 12:54:57 | Re: ERROR: invalid memory alloc request size <a_big_number_here> |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2005-10-27 11:17:26 | Ideas for easier debugging of backend problems |