| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, david(at)kineticode(dot)com, itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Support UTF-8 files with BOM in COPY FROM |
| Date: | 2011-09-26 18:47:06 |
| Message-ID: | 4E80C8AA.8060307@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/26/2011 02:38 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On mån, 2011-09-26 at 13:19 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> The thing that makes me doubt that is this comment from Tatsuo Ishii:
>>
>> TI> COPY explicitly specifies the encoding (to be UTF-8 in this case).
>> So
>> TI> I think we should not regard U+FEFF as "BOM" in COPY, rather we
>> should
>> TI> regard U+FEFF as "ZERO WIDTH NO-BREAK SPACE".
>>
>> If a BOM is confusable with valid data, then I think recognizing it
>> and discarding it unconditionally is no good - you could end up where
>> COPY OUT, TRUNCATE, COPY IN changes the table contents.
> We did recently accept a patch for psql -f to skip over a UTF-8
> byte-order mark. We had a lot of this same discussion there.
>
>
Yes, but wasn't part of the rationale that this was safe because a
leading BOM could not possibly be mistaken for anything else legitimate
in an SQL source file? That's quite different from a data file. ISTM.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-09-26 18:49:16 | Re: Support UTF-8 files with BOM in COPY FROM |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-09-26 18:44:12 | Re: Support UTF-8 files with BOM in COPY FROM |