| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | david(at)justatheory(dot)com |
| Cc: | guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info, jim(at)nasby(dot)net, andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net, mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: psql blows up on BOM character sequence |
| Date: | 2014-03-25 00:24:06 |
| Message-ID: | 20140325.092406.721441529421910259.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> Just a quick comment on this. Yes, pgAdmin always added a BOM in every
>> SQL files it wrote.
>
> From http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2223882/whats-different-between-utf-8-and-utf-8-without-bom:
>
> According to the Unicode standard, the BOM for UTF-8 files is not recommended:
>
> 2.6 Encoding Schemes
>
> ... Use of a BOM is neither required nor recommended for UTF-8, but may be encountered in contexts where UTF-8 data is converted from other encoding forms that use a BOM or where the BOM is used as a UTF-8 signature. See the “Byte Order Mark” subsection in Section 16.8, Specials, for more information.
Right. I think unconditionally adding BOM to a file is evil.
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-03-25 00:28:22 | Re: About adding an attribute to pg_attibute |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-03-25 00:13:14 | Re: Only first XLogRecData is visible to rm_desc with WAL_DEBUG |