Re: invalidly encoded strings

From: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: invalidly encoded strings
Date: 2007-09-10 16:25:01
Message-ID: 20070910162501.GG16512@svana.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 11:48:29AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, I'm sure this was discussed but I forgot the conclusion: should
> chr(0) throw an error? If we're trying to get rid of embedded-null
> problems, seems it must.

It is pointed out on wikipedia that Java sometimes uses to byte pair C0
80 to represent the NUL character to allow it to be embedded in C
strings without tripping anything up. It is however technically an
illegal representation (violates the minimal representation rule) and
thus rejected by postgres. I'm not suggesting we copy this, but it does
show there are other ways to deal with this.

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2007-09-10 16:27:33 Re: invalidly encoded strings
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-09-10 16:24:57 Re: integrated tsearch doesn't work with non utf8 database

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2007-09-10 16:27:33 Re: invalidly encoded strings
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-09-10 16:21:02 Re: invalidly encoded strings