| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com, jim(at)nasby(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: psql blows up on BOM character sequence |
| Date: | 2014-03-25 01:42:18 |
| Message-ID: | 5330DEFA.20901@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 03/24/2014 08:28 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> The code would probably be pretty trivial, *if* we had consensus on
>> what the behavior ought to be. I'm not sure if we do. People who
>> only use Unicode would probably like it if BOMs were unconditionally
>> swallowed, whether or not psql thinks the client_encoding is UTF8.
>> (And I seem to recall somebody even proposing that finding a BOM
>> be cause to switch the client_encoding to UTF8.)
> This is a bad idea. ISO 8859-1 uses 0xfe and 0xff (BOM) for some
> characters.
>
>
Yeah, I think there is no consensus to do anything unless the client
encoding is UTF8.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tanmay Deshpande | 2014-03-25 02:20:59 | About adding a column to an existing system catalog |
| Previous Message | Tanmay Deshpande | 2014-03-25 01:38:41 | About adding an attribute to a system catalog |