| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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 17:28:15 |
| Message-ID: | 9978.1317058095@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 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".
Yeah, that's a reasonable argument for rejecting the patch altogether.
I'm not qualified to decide whether it outweighs the "we need to be able
to read Notepad output" argument. I do observe that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte_order_mark
says Unicode 3.2 has deprecated the no-break-space interpretation,
but on the other hand you're right that we can't really assume that
the character is not present in people's data.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-09-26 17:34:23 | Re: Support UTF-8 files with BOM in COPY FROM |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-09-26 17:19:26 | Re: Support UTF-8 files with BOM in COPY FROM |